Good candidate for a Ph.D. program?

[quondamimperator]

Hello all,

I imagine you're rather sick of reading this type of post, but quite frankly, I couldn't help myself. I've spent the last four years vacillating between getting a law degree and pursuing a Ph.D. in history, with a specialization in medieval studies. I went through my undergraduate career assuming I would pursue history as far as I could, since I could always take the LSAT/get a law degree if/when I decided to be "practical"-as my family would have it. I graduated cum laude from Boston University with a 3.55 GPA and an honors thesis, I also picked up a minor in classical civilization. I took the GRE and got a 700 verbal and a 630 quantitative with a lowly 5.0 analytical writing. I have 3 strong recommenders and I intend to edit down my thesis into an entrance essay.

So, I'm not writing to ask if you think I should go for a Ph.D.--I'll figure that out eventually-- I'm wondering if I have a shot at getting funding somewhere, or is my low GPA (relative to my competition) and poor writing score going to be prohibitive?

Many thanks, and please be kind.

[TMP]

Um, if you're questioning if you should go for a PhD, then why are you even thinking about it? Answer that first.

And read "Freaking out, what are my chances?" thread and there's your answer of IF you're in position to apply for PhD and get the best outcomes with the programs you're looking to apply to.

[quondamimperator]

Um, if you're questioning if you should go for a PhD, then why are you even thinking about it? Answer that first.

And read "Freaking out, what are my chances?" thread and there's your answer of IF you're in position to apply for PhD and get the best outcomes with the programs you're looking to apply to.

That's probably the type of asinine answer I should have expected. Why am I even thinking about it? Really?

[kahlan_amnell]

That's probably the type of asinine answer I should have expected. Why am I even thinking about it? Really?

Ph.D. programs are difficult enough when you know for sure you want to be there, if you aren't sure you should wait to apply until you are sure.

That was not an "asinine answer" and you won't get very far by being rude to people.

[quondamimperator]

Ph.D. programs are difficult enough when you know for sure you want to be there, if you aren't sure you should wait to apply until you are sure.

That was not an "asinine answer" and you won't get very far by being rude to people.

Ugh. Apparently my OP wasn't as clear as I thought it was. I was trying to say that I have been CONSIDERING applying in the future to a PhD program. As a part of that decision, which I have been taking VERY seriously, and mulling for the last FOUR years. I was curious to get some feedback on my chances of being accepted/receiving funding (there doesn't seem to be much data available, in a statistical sense, as to what it takes to be accepted).

As far as this idea that I have to have some divine certainty to even apply, that's just nonsense. I've had multiple professors describe their state of mind when they applied to graduate school, and it was hardly the type-A certainty that you seem to think so imperative. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was taking the idea of graduate school lightly, I would hardly have prepared for and taken the GRE, or written a senior thesis, or taken 2 extra languages if it were some momentary whimsy. I had also hoped that by specifically saying I wanted to put the question of my decision aside, and simply consider the brass tacks of my chances for acceptance, I was asking a clear enough question. Obviously not.

Regarding my "rudeness"- his answer was asinine. First off, it was borderline non-sensical. "If I'm questioning if I should go for a PhD why am I even thinking about it?" So, the presence of uncertainty means I shouldn't even be considering the application process? That's called weighing your options.. You don't have to be so sanctimonious. It's not as black and white as you would have it.

I would delete this entire string if I saw a button for it.

[TMP]

Ugh. Apparently my OP wasn't as clear as I thought it was. I was trying to say that I have been CONSIDERING applying in the future to a PhD program. As a part of that decision, which I have been taking VERY seriously, and mulling for the last FOUR years. I was curious to get some feedback on my chances of being accepted/receiving funding (there doesn't seem to be much data available, in a statistical sense, as to what it takes to be accepted).

As far as this idea that I have to have some divine certainty to even apply, that's just nonsense. I've had multiple professors describe their state of mind when they applied to graduate school, and it was hardly the type-A certainty that you seem to think so imperative. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was taking the idea of graduate school lightly, I would hardly have prepared for and taken the GRE, or written a senior thesis, or taken 2 extra languages if it were some momentary whimsy. I had also hoped that by specifically saying I wanted to put the question of my decision aside, and simply consider the brass tacks of my chances for acceptance, I was asking a clear enough question. Obviously not.

Regarding my "rudeness"- his answer was asinine. First off, it was borderline non-sensical. "If I'm questioning if I should go for a PhD why am I even thinking about it?" So, the presence of uncertainty means I shouldn't even be considering the application process? That's called weighing your options.. You don't have to be so sanctimonious. It's not as black and white as you would have it.

I would delete this entire string if I saw a button for it.

Let me make this clear to you if you haven't still read some of the threads down below on what it takes to get into PhD programs. Programs cannot give you stats. They cannot tell you specifically what they want from their applicants, especially over languages. I talked to THREE professors from one program and their answers for languages were as following:

Prof A) "You really should have three languages in order to be highly competitive. Do you have a third besides Yiddish and Hebrew? Spanish? Good. You're okay now. Let's move on..."

Prof B ) "Honestly, if you want to do my specialty, I cannot really... I cannot really take students who do not know German. But it's nice that you know Hebrew and Yiddish..."

Prof C) "Many of our students come in not knowing Yiddish so they take our summer programs for a summer or two. But we do expect everyone to have some Hebrew. Languages are important but it's not required to have three already."

However, they were all in agreement on what they were looking for in a statement of purpose.

There you have it. Numbers and experience can only tell so much. Professors in PhD programs want eyewitnesses to your research and writing potential, and that makes your writing sample and LORs. They want to see evidence that you've done some research on your field of specialty, not just take classes in that. Academia is like rushing an exclusive society like Bones and Skull at Yale where presentation and personal recommendations matter.

Edited October 17, 2009 by ticklemepink

[youcallthatagency?]

There is a person in my department who does medieval studies who has I think the exact same background as you do, although I don't know what his numbers are. (seeing as I know him pretty well, I'd guess 4.0 given his tendency to on-the-spot translate Cicero and various types of Latin) Actually, his adviser at BU is a former grad student of his adviser in our department, so it was a whole incestuous thing going on (their words, not mine). So I would say talk with your adviser about it. I had a 3.4 and have full funding, stranger things have happened, but I know his adviser well enough to know that that would not fly. So it depends greatly on the situation.

Edited October 17, 2009 by youcallthatagency?

[quondamimperator]

Thanks.

[misterpat]

Hello all,

I imagine you're rather sick of reading this type of post, but quite frankly, I couldn't help myself. I've spent the last four years vacillating between getting a law degree and pursuing a Ph.D. in history, with a specialization in medieval studies. I went through my undergraduate career assuming I would pursue history as far as I could, since I could always take the LSAT/get a law degree if/when I decided to be "practical"-as my family would have it. I graduated cum laude from Boston University with a 3.55 GPA and an honors thesis, I also picked up a minor in classical civilization. I took the GRE and got a 700 verbal and a 630 quantitative with a lowly 5.0 analytical writing. I have 3 strong recommenders and I intend to edit down my thesis into an entrance essay.

So, I'm not writing to ask if you think I should go for a Ph.D.--I'll figure that out eventually-- I'm wondering if I have a shot at getting funding somewhere, or is my low GPA (relative to my competition) and poor writing score going to be prohibitive?

Many thanks, and please be kind.

I sure wish MY 3.55 gpa was considered cum laude...

Anyway, as you seem to know, we are indeed sick of this question. They really should make an announcement that stays at the top of the page: "TO NEW POSTERS: NO, WE CANNOT PREDICT YOUR ADMISSIONS CYCLE."

They are right to tell you that there isn't really a good answer to your question. Numbers will only get your foot in the door. You seem to know this, but wonder what those numbers might need to be... Your GPA will probably be a knock on your application at the very top schools. Not to say you couldn't get in with the right materials, but it's academia, so 3.9s and 4.0s are going to be pretty common among the competition at top schools. I doubt the AWA score will hurt you. You have an entire writing sample to showcase your analytic and writing abilities. The faculty will probably not see your ability to construct an opinion in under an hour on whether "Great advances in knowledge always require a rejection of authority," as indicative of your ability to do graduate-level work. If I were you, I wouldn't worry much about this stuff. It's the other aspects of your application which are going to make or break you.

In your defense, I've always struggled with the PhD/JD decision, and have even considered doing a dual degree. I applied for PhD programs last year, and though some prospective advisers and American sub-committees recommended me to be admitted, I ended up getting waitlisted or rejected outright by the general funding committees. This year, the JD is my plan B. I'm mixing in a few law school applications in with my PhDs. And while many people on this board will give you a response similar to tickle's and kahlan's, I think they are overstating a valid position

Granted, I am not in a PhD program, and they are, so take my post for what it's worth. A PhD program is a hell of a commitment; I'm not here to disagree with that. But to say that someone could not handle a PhD program because they have had second thoughts about attending law school or doing something else seems incredibly self-satisfied and unrealistic. Granted, you should be in the proper mindeset once you start the program, but to tell someone who is at a crossroads in their life that they are unable to handle a PhD because they have doubts about starting a program that lasts the better half of a decade, with precarious job prospects no less, isn't being helpful. I had a similar exchange with someone exponentially more unpleasant when I first started posting here and I was uncertain about what discipline I should apply under. That one can study American politics from a variety of perspectives and disciplines seemed irrelevant to her; the slightest bit of wavering, despite the fact that the wavering was a pragmatic consideration because of the other discipline's less-competitive job market, convinced her that I was not to be among the elect. Don't let people like that bring you down.

I should add that they are, to a certain extent, correct. People like you and me likely aren't going to end up at Princeton or Yale (oddly enough, neither will most of the people who make this argument, but this is neither here nor there). There are enough people who have been gung-ho from day 1 of freshman year to fill those programs. They have the best backgrounds, most research experience, best letters of recommendation, etc. They deserve those spots, and there's nothing we can really do to match their credentials. But plenty of people get into decent PhD programs every year with profiles more like yours and mine, so don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Just don't mention your uncertainty in your statement of purpose.

Best of luck.

Edited October 20, 2009 by misterpat

[quondamimperator]

I sure wish MY 3.55 gpa was considered cum laude...

Anyway, as you seem to know, we are indeed sick of this question. They really should make an announcement that stays at the top of the page: "TO NEW POSTERS: NO, WE CANNOT PREDICT YOUR ADMISSIONS CYCLE."

They are right to tell you that there isn't really a good answer to your question. Numbers will only get your foot in the door. You seem to know this, but wonder what those numbers might need to be... Your GPA will probably be a knock on your application at the very top schools. Not to say you couldn't get in with the right materials, but it's academia, so 3.9s and 4.0s are going to be pretty common among the competition at top schools. I doubt the AWA score will hurt you. You have an entire writing sample to showcase your analytic and writing abilities. The faculty will probably not see your ability to construct an opinion in under an hour on whether "Great advances in knowledge always require a rejection of authority," as indicative of your ability to do graduate-level work. If I were you, I wouldn't worry much about this stuff. It's the other aspects of your application which are going to make or break you.

In your defense, I've always struggled with the PhD/JD decision, and have even considered doing a dual degree. I applied for PhD programs last year, and though some prospective advisers and American sub-committees recommended me to be admitted, I ended up getting waitlisted or rejected outright by the general funding committees. This year, the JD is my plan B. I'm mixing in a few law school applications in with my PhDs. And while many people on this board will give you a response similar to tickle's and kahlan's, I think they are overstating a valid position

Granted, I am not in a PhD program, and they are, so take my post for what it's worth. A PhD program is a hell of a commitment; I'm not here to disagree with that. But to say that someone could not handle a PhD program because they have had second thoughts about attending law school or doing something else seems incredibly self-satisfied and unrealistic. Granted, you should be in the proper mindeset once you start the program, but to tell someone who is at a crossroads in their life that they are unable to handle a PhD because they have doubts about starting a program that lasts the better half of a decade, with precarious job prospects no less, isn't being helpful. I had a similar exchange with someone exponentially more unpleasant when I first started posting here and I was uncertain about what discipline I should apply under. That one can study American politics from a variety of perspectives and disciplines seemed irrelevant to her; the slightest bit of wavering, despite the fact that the wavering was a pragmatic consideration because of the other discipline's less-competitive job market, convinced her that I was not to be among the elect. Don't let people like that bring you down.

I should add that they are, to a certain extent, correct. People like you and me likely aren't going to end up at Princeton or Yale (oddly enough, neither will most of the people who make this argument, but this is neither here nor there). There are enough people who have been gung-ho from day 1 of freshman year to fill those programs. They have the best backgrounds, most research experience, best letters of recommendation, etc. They deserve those spots, and there's nothing we can really do to match their credentials. But plenty of people get into decent PhD programs every year with profiles more like yours and mine, so don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Just don't mention your uncertainty in your statement of purpose.

Best of luck.

Thank you very much for taking the time to write that. I wish you the best with your upcoming apps.