How many programs did you apply to?

[Tinieblas.]

Hello, all.  I'm trying to make a shortlist of schools that I'll apply to, but I'm starting to feel overwhelmed.  Right now I have 15 programs on my list--2 MA and 13 PhD.  I want to cast a wide net and I really would be happy to be accepted to any of these programs.  I've been out of undergrad for 6 years now, so I want to start working toward the PhD asap. I'm just terrified of getting completely shut out and having to wait another year to get started.  And, although it is a crazy amount of money, I'm willing to bite the bullet if it really is going to be a one-time investment.  So, is it nuts to apply to 15 schools?  How many did you all apply for?

Thanks in advance.  

[Dr. Old Bill]

It's not nuts at all. I applied to 17 last year. Given the low percentages of admissions, it's actually rather smart, in my view, unless you have a strong plan B. The cost is prohibitive, but if this is the path you know you want to be on, it's worth spending an extra few hundred to give yourself more potential options, so long as all of the programs you apply to are truly in the wheelhouse of your interests.

 

[Tinieblas.]

Thank you, Wyatt's Terps!  I am really trying to look at schools with strong programs in my area ask myself, "Would I be happy studying at this university for 5+ years?"  So far I can say yes to all of them, so...

[haltheincandescent]

Yep, I agree with Wyatt. Originally, I intended to apply to 9, based on some other threads I saw around here and on other grad related boards, then one of my letter writers very specifically told me to apply to no less than around 15. I ended up with a list of 14, just because I really couldn't find 1 more that had the right mix of profs to match my slightly idiosyncratic interests and reasonable funding--but if you can find more good matches, and know that you'd be perfectly happy even with your least "favorite" among them, then go for it!

(Also, on the cost note: I have no idea what your interests are, or how good of a match these would be, but I just discovered as I was extending my list the other day, that Vanderbilt waives their application fee if you apply online; and so does Emory if you get in all your materials by Oct. 31st [LoRs and GRE scores will apparently be accepted until the normal deadline of Dec. 15th or something.] Still have to pay to send them the GRE score reports, but these were nice notes to discover as I was adding up and slowly beginning to despair at the cost of all this...)

[toasterazzi]

I initially planned to apply to around 10 schools for the PhD, but the cost got in the way. I ended up applying to six schools.

From what I've observed though, there's no magic number or guarantee. I've seen people on here apply to 20 schools and strike out, and I've seen other people apply to three schools and get into all of them. When I applied for my MA, I did exactly one school and got in. With my PhD apps, I was accepted by two schools outright, waitlisted at another, rejected from two, and I never heard back from one.

I will add that the CIC fee waivers can be really useful depending on what schools you're applying to: https://www.cic.net/students/freeapp/introduction. They helped me out quite a bit.

 

[Tinieblas.]

(Also, on the cost note: I have no idea what your interests are, or how good of a match these would be, but I just discovered as I was extending my list the other day, that Vanderbilt waives their application fee if you apply online; and so does Emory if you get in all your materials by Oct. 31st [LoRs and GRE scores will apparently be accepted until the normal deadline of Dec. 15th or something.] Still have to pay to send them the GRE score reports, but these were nice notes to discover as I was adding up and slowly beginning to despair at the cost of all this...)

Thanks!  I haven't seen anything on the websites from my schools that waive the application fee for applying early, but I'll have another look.  At any rate, I'm not sure if I'll be ready to send everything in before November...yikes!

 

[Tinieblas.]

I will add that the CIC fee waivers can be really useful depending on what schools you're applying to: https://www.cic.net/students/freeapp/introduction. They helped me out quite a bit.

 

Wow, that's great : )  Four of my schools are on that list.  Thanks for the tip.  

[silenus_thescribe]

My personal rule is no fewer than 10. If you're coming in with a BA, it's worth applying to funded MA programs as well, given how tight PhD admissions have become. I myself applied to 13.

One thing to note: I was initially only going to apply to 12, but because I checked some box thing on the GRE, my scores got sent around to places, the result of which is that I got an application waiver for Brandeis, a school I had initially considered but then ruled out for time/money constraints. Adding on another app does create an additional time burden, but if you can increase your chances of getting in without additional fiscal costs, you should definitely do so. 

[echo449]

I would just chime in and say you should apply to however many you can apply to without being angry with yourself for not applying to more. In other words, there is no right number. 

[bhr]

I would also suggest that you talk to your advisor, or someone knowledgeable about the application process and your chances at each school you plan to submit to. Remember, for each application you submit you are asking your letter writers to do some amount of work, and if they have multiple students applying to 10+ programs they are going to be quite busy getting them all done. If you have someone who can give you frank, honest feedback about your chances at specific programs, talking to them may save you time and money (or force you to expand your pool). 

In my case, my advisor suggested no more than 6-7 programs, both because it will eat up a lot of my time during the end of the semester, and because he's confident in my chances at a few of the programs we've discussed.

[Tinieblas.]

Thanks, guys.  I feel like I'd rather apply to too many than too few...My gpa is only a 3.5 so even though other parts of my app are strong I know it'll be harder for me at higher ranked schools.  I asked one of my recommenders about my list and she actually suggested that I apply to a few more!  

[dr. t]

So the advice I received (and the advice I'll give) is a bit... different. This may be due to a difference of fields, but I don't know why that would be the case.

Do not apply broadly, i.e. to more than ~5-6 programs. Be very honest with yourself about which of the programs you want to apply to are actually good fits, and which you want to go to for other reasons. I personally should probably not have applied to UChicago last cycle, but the campus is just so pretty. If there are more than 5-6 programs in which you are a really good fit, whittle down your list by looking at ranking and placement rates. Never consider a program that does not offer a full funding package for five years.

It may seem like getting into a program is the most important thing right now. After all, why would you be doing this if you didn't desperately want it? But unless you're independently wealthy, that's not your goal. Your goal is to get a PhD and a job on the other end. Plan your applications with that in mind. 

There are worse things in life than not getting in, and as any good student of literature should know, the drive to fulfill a goal regardless of cost or method does not usually result in a happy ending.

Edited October 12, 2015 by telkanuru

[Tinieblas.]

So the advice I received (and the advice I'll give) is a bit... different. This may be due to a difference of fields, but I don't know why that would be the case.

Do not apply broadly, i.e. to more than ~5-6 programs. Be very honest with yourself about which of the programs you want to apply to are actually good fits, and which you want to go to for other reasons. I personally should probably not have applied to UChicago last cycle, but the campus is just so pretty. If there are more than 5-6 programs in which you are a really good fit, whittle down your list by looking at ranking and placement rates. Never consider a program that does not offer a full funding package for five years.

It may seem like getting into a program is the most important thing right now. After all, why would you be doing this if you didn't desperately want it? But unless you're independently wealthy, that's not your goal. Your goal is to get a PhD and a job on the other end. Plan your applications with that in mind. 

There are worse things in life than not getting in, and as any good student of literature should know, the drive to fulfill a goal regardless of cost or method does not usually result in a happy ending.

This is sound advice, Telkanuru.  I'm lucky in that I have a fairly common area of interest (19th-20th c. American and Ethnic Lit) and there are several schools with strong programs.  I've been careful to research faculty, course offerings, funding, job placement, etc. at these schools and if I honestly feel that I can't see myself being happy there, I won't apply.   I know that some of the schools I'm applying to might be a bit out of my reach.  Yet, I feel like I'll kick myself later if I don't give it a try.  I feel really confident about my writing sample, so hopefully I'll get lucky and it will catch someone's eye.  Fingers crossed!

[Dr. Old Bill]

 I feel really confident about my writing sample, so hopefully I'll get lucky and it will catch someone's eye.  Fingers crossed!

At the risk of sounding unnecessarily alarmist, my (very humble) opinion is that you should get as many eyes on your WS as possible. The only reason I say this is because I was very confident in my writing sample as well -- so much so that I considered it the strongest part of my application, not requiring extensive feedback. As it turns out, I know from at least two sources on graduate admissions committees that my writing sample was lacking. That is to say, the writing itself was good (thankfully), but since it didn't engage contemporary critical research, it wasn't as competitive. It was well-researched, comprehensive, and even "beautifully written" according to one adcomm member...but it missed the boat when it comes to demonstrating potential to do cutting edge investigation.

I also recently learned that one term I used heavily throughout (even in the title, as I recall) actually has a deeper, meaning-laden significance in academic writing. Mea culpa.

Your writing sample might be close to perfect, and my comments might be needless. Yet I feel I should mention it regardless, just in case.

[Tinieblas.]

At the risk of sounding unnecessarily alarmist, my (very humble) opinion is that you should get as many eyes on your WS as possible. 

Thanks WT.  One of my advisers helped me with it, and she works in my field and knows a lot about graduate admissions.  My paper does deal with contemporary scholarship, and since I've finished a (painful) rewrite I think it's good to go.  Though, you're right that it would be wise to have another professor have a look at it, so perhaps I'll ask one of my other recommenders for feedback.  Thanks!

[dr. t]

I know that some of the schools I'm applying to might be a bit out of my reach.  Yet, I feel like I'll kick myself later if I don't give it a try.  

This is kind of the opposite sentiment of what I was suggesting. I think you would be better off if you cut schools you thought were safe (well, safer, there's no such thing as a safety school here). In other words, whether you think you'll get in should not be a factor in deciding where (or to how many) you apply. My advice is to only aim high and be OK with missing.

Edited October 12, 2015 by telkanuru

[Metaellipses]

Thanks WT.  One of my advisers helped me with it, and she works in my field and knows a lot about graduate admissions.  My paper does deal with contemporary scholarship, and since I've finished a (painful) rewrite I think it's good to go.  Though, you're right that it would be wise to have another professor have a look at it, so perhaps I'll ask one of my other recommenders for feedback.  Thanks!

I'd also have someone outside your field look at your writing sample. I honestly believe that I wouldn't have done well my application season if I hadn't had my writing sample looked at by someone out of field. My advisor was so familiar with my work (and with the area of criticism that I was writing in) that he didn't catch a lot of things that stood out as significant problems once I had someone out of field (a 19th century Americanist - so quite far out of field) look at it. Remember: the admissions committee isn't going to consist of specialists in your field. Your admission definitely depends on someone in your general field signing off on you. But often, the person you want to work with - someone closely aligned with your interests - won't be on the admissions committee. That's what happened in my year. Neither of my two main advisors were on the committee that year. In addition, no-one makes admissions decisions in a vacuum; they have to get the DGS to sign off on admissions and defer to other members of the committee. For these reasons, I think having someone out of field look at your Writing Sample and SOP is necessary to maximize your chances of success in what is becoming an increasingly opaque and arbitrary admissions process.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Metaellipses
bad at grammar

[allplaideverything]

So the advice I received (and the advice I'll give) is a bit... different. This may be due to a difference of fields, but I don't know why that would be the case.

Do not apply broadly, i.e. to more than ~5-6 programs. Be very honest with yourself about which of the programs you want to apply to are actually good fits, and which you want to go to for other reasons.

It may seem like getting into a program is the most important thing right now. After all, why would you be doing this if you didn't desperately want it? But unless you're independently wealthy, that's not your goal. Your goal is to get a PhD and a job on the other end. Plan your applications with that in mind. 

 

Of course everybody has to decide for themselves what their goals and priorities are, so, I'm glad this strategy has worked out for you, telkanuru!

That said, the suggestion that you can really know enough about various graduate programs to be able to accurately predict where you'll be happiest, where you'll find mentors and colleagues who challenge and encourage you in the best ways, where you're able to do your best work, where your interests 3 years from now will be and therefore where those interests will make you a good fit, etc., is a pretty, um, ambitious claim.

While the job market is of course competitive and terrifying in all sorts of ways, going to one of the "best" programs doesn't guarantee you a job (or even guarantee that you'll finish the degree), and going to a lower ranked program doesn't guarantee that you won't get a job (though it might guarantee that you won't be teaching at Harvard).

I think the great majority of informed PhD applicants in the humanities apply broadly because indeed their goal is to do a PhD, which you can't do if you're not accepted.

Tineblas, I applied to 12 PhD programs, across the ranking spectrum, and am so far pretty happy with how it went. Best of luck!

[kurayamino]

I'd also have someone outside your field look at your writing sample. I honestly believe that I wouldn't have done well my application season if I hadn't had my writing sample looked at by someone out of field. My advisor was so familiar with my work (and with the area of criticism that I was writing in) that he didn't catch a lot of things that stood out as significant problems once I had someone out of field (a 19th century Americanist - so quite far out of field) look at it. Remember: the admissions committee isn't going to consist of specialists in your field. Your admission definitely depends on someone in your general field signing off on you. But often, the person you want to work with - someone closely aligned with your interests - won't be on the admissions committee. That's what happened in my year. Neither of my two main advisors were on the committee that year. In addition, no-one makes admissions decisions in a vacuum; they have to get the DGS to sign off on admissions and defer to other members of the committee. For these reasons, I think having someone out of field look at your Writing Sample and SOP is necessary to maximize your chances of success in what is becoming an increasingly opaque and arbitrary admissions process.

I second this very very strongly. My writing sample would have bombed miserably if I hadn't received feedback from two people outside of my field. Not that their feedback made my writing sample more general, but it forced me to explicate some of the things which were particular to my century/field/focus.

[rising_star]

Of course everybody has to decide for themselves what their goals and priorities are, so, I'm glad this strategy has worked out for you, telkanuru!

That said, the suggestion that you can really know enough about various graduate programs to be able to accurately predict where you'll be happiest, where you'll find mentors and colleagues who challenge and encourage you in the best ways, where you're able to do your best work, where your interests 3 years from now will be and therefore where those interests will make you a good fit, etc., is a pretty, um, ambitious claim.

I don't think that's the claim telkanuru is making though. You'll never know enough about a program to be able to predict if you'll be happiest there. That's true even once you're there (see, for example, the numerous threads in "Officially Grads" of people seeking to transfer or switch to another PhD program). You will never have perfect information about all of the above, even if you apply, are accepted, get funding to visit, and spend 2-3 days there conversing with graduate students and faculty. Like, you really can't know all of those things, even once you're done. I often wondered what my path through the PhD would've looked like if I'd gone to two other schools I strongly considered and, again, there's no way of knowing. I might've gotten better mentorship or published more, but I also might not have gotten as many grants or fellowships. 

If you're applying to 15 or 20 schools just to hedge your bets on where you might be happy or where you might find the best mentors, then that doesn't really make sense. People (faculty) move from one institution to another and many people think that will happen more as state universities face additional budget constraints in the coming years (that is, people are predicting that senior faculty will move from public to private universities in the US and there's evidence that this is already happening). You will change and what is the perfect fit now may not be once that happens. For example, my MA program was a perfect fit for me. I mean, perfect. In a grad seminar there, I had my eyes opened to a subfield I wasn't really aware existed and decided to make that my specialty going forward, which meant that the MA program was no longer perfect for me. Luckily for me, this happened as I was doing PhD applications, so it made leaving for another institution a great idea. Had you asked me before then, I would've told you that staying there for my PhD made the most sense. 

For the record, I'm more like telkanuru than most of you in terms of total schools applied to. If you count MA and PhD applications, then I did 14. After applying to, getting accepted at, and visiting some of those programs on the school's dime, I decided that several weren't for me (1 at the MA level, 3 at the PhD level). I honestly wish I'd saved the ~$250 (apps used to be cheaper) that I spent on those applications and had the weekends back I spent visiting those schools. They were a good fit on paper only.

Oh, and definitely get multiple eyes on your writing sample. It's good practice to have people outside your niche read your work since they will see things those within your subfield may not (e.g., you may not explain something because everyone in your subfield knows it but, those outside of it, may be confused when they read the exact same passage). Good luck!

[dr. t]

While the job market is of course competitive and terrifying in all sorts of ways, going to one of the "best" programs doesn't guarantee you a job (or even guarantee that you'll finish the degree), and going to a lower ranked program doesn't guarantee that you won't get a job (though it might guarantee that you won't be teaching at Harvard).

I think the great majority of informed PhD applicants in the humanities apply broadly because indeed their goal is to do a PhD, which you can't do if you're not accepted.

Of course your program isn't an absolute determiner of where you'll end up. No one will make that claim, and it would be foolish to defend it. And yet I keep seeing it set up to be knocked down on this forum. So yeah, maybe it will all work out if you go to that program ranked outside the top ~20. The statistics are pretty brutal, so it probably won't, though. Those statistics---and not a desperate hope---are what should inform one's decision.

If a person's end goal is to do a PhD as you suggest, I would strongly disagree with your assessment of that person as "informed". Saying you don't care how the cards fall and that you just want to get the PhD is a fantastic way to avoid dealing with the scope and probable consequences of the decision to attend. Lying to yourself is the easiest kind of lie there is; this is not an eyes-open approach.

 

FWIW, I applied to 7 programs (6+MA) my first cycle and 6 the second. If I had considered my options more carefully, I would have only applied to 4 the second time around and saved $180.

Edited October 13, 2015 by telkanuru

[dr. t]

I don't think that's the claim telkanuru is making though. You'll never know enough about a program to be able to predict if you'll be happiest there.

Exactly. I'm talking a much more basic winnowing, e.g. "The professors here are only kind of in my area", "the major reason I'm choosing this school is because I like the city", "I really just want 'Harvard' on my diploma", "I will need to travel for my diss, and there isn't much internal funding beyond the stipend", etc.

Look, I get that the CHE is the doom and gloom forum, and here we're fresh-faced, positive, and optimistic. But if you're applying for graduate school, you hopefully have some skills in critical analysis. Don't forget to use them on yourself.

[BooksCoffeeBeards]

I'm applying to 7, and went through a LOT of winnowing down over this year before most of the apps opened last month. I am down to 7, based on fit, location, and what I can afford (NTT salary, WOOOOOOOOOOO).

[__________________________]

So the advice I received (and the advice I'll give) is a bit... different. This may be due to a difference of fields, but I don't know why that would be the case.

Do not apply broadly, i.e. to more than ~5-6 programs. Be very honest with yourself about which of the programs you want to apply to are actually good fits, and which you want to go to for other reasons. I personally should probably not have applied to UChicago last cycle, but the campus is just so pretty. If there are more than 5-6 programs in which you are a really good fit, whittle down your list by looking at ranking and placement rates. Never consider a program that does not offer a full funding package for five years.

It may seem like getting into a program is the most important thing right now. After all, why would you be doing this if you didn't desperately want it? But unless you're independently wealthy, that's not your goal. Your goal is to get a PhD and a job on the other end. Plan your applications with that in mind. 

There are worse things in life than not getting in, and as any good student of literature should know, the drive to fulfill a goal regardless of cost or method does not usually result in a happy ending.

I think this is very sound advice.  I applied to 9 (8 and 1 MA) and I probably should have cut out, like, four or five of those and replaced them with one or two others... but, you know, hindsight...

Sure, your interests may change, but if you're applying for a Ph.D. you should have some sense of what your general interests are: what sort of questions grab your interest, what period(s) interest you, what sorts of methodologies compel you.  There are top schools that I applied to out of a sense of obligation (and lower-tiered ones as well) -- they were "obvious" choices for my field -- that I had no right to apply to and which would have been a terrible fit.  I really can't imagine applying to more than 10 programs really, and even that seems high.   I think one should try to apply to places that seem most useful to you as a scholar -- both due to things like the personality of the program (big, with lots of people doing their own thing vs. small and collaborative), the scholars who work there who seem like they're doing the kind of work you want to do, and the resources available in the university at large.  You'll hear about fit a lot, and I can't stress it enough (I got in to both my top choices and rejected from almost all of my "safety schools" because of it) and honestly, there's no magic number, but based on my criteria I can't imagine applying to 15 schools (putting the sheer expense aside -- yikes) and honestly being able to picture myself being happy at all of those places.

[Guest]

At the risk of sounding unnecessarily alarmist, my (very humble) opinion is that you should get as many eyes on your WS as possible. The only reason I say this is because I was very confident in my writing sample as well -- so much so that I considered it the strongest part of my application, not requiring extensive feedback. As it turns out, I know from at least two sources on graduate admissions committees that my writing sample was lacking. That is to say, the writing itself was good (thankfully), but since it didn't engage contemporary critical research, it wasn't as competitive. It was well-researched, comprehensive, and even "beautifully written" according to one adcomm member...but it missed the boat when it comes to demonstrating potential to do cutting edge investigation.

I also recently learned that one term I used heavily throughout (even in the title, as I recall) actually has a deeper, meaning-laden significance in academic writing. Mea culpa.

Your writing sample might be close to perfect, and my comments might be needless. Yet I feel I should mention it regardless, just in case.

Wyatt's Terps, I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries in saying this, but I think you should take the advice you received from adcoms with a grain of salt. These committees had already made the decision to reject you, for whatever reason (and probably not one that had anything to do with you as much as the fact that there were just other people they wanted to work with MORE), and telling you that your writing sample was lacking was justification after the fact. Of course that's what they're going to say. Unless there was some other glaring reason for your rejection that they can go to straightaway (GPA/GRE didn't meet the cut-off, for instance), they are going to go to your writing sample and say it wasn't fill-in-the-blank enough (theorized, historicized, cutting-edge). They are not going to say to you, "Wyatt's Terps, you were awesome, but other candidates came with big-name recommenders we can't turn down because reasons." So they are going to say some BS about your writing sample. 

I'll let you in on a secret: most people have truly shitty writing samples. The reason? Because most people aren't writing at the level of ABD PhD students or junior faculty. Some people are, obviously, and they're the people who get into all the top programs. But 95% of people are not anywhere close to that level. Believe me, I have read my fair share of writing samples, and most are lacking in obvious ways. Why? Because these writing samples were written by BAs or senior English majors! EVERYONE is pulling from older criticism, or putting forward interpretations that were already put to rest in 1995. Very few BAs have had the time or occasion to really think through scholarship and source texts in ways that would produce truly daring, original readings. If everyone was capable of such a feat, then grad school would be unnecessary. I'm basically living proof of this: I fielded a boring application with a boring writing sample. I got lucky (got into one program). 5-6 years later, and after much gnashing of teeth, shitloads of reading, miles of rewriting and trashed dissertation ideas, rejections from conferences and journals followed by eventual acceptances, I finally produced scholarship that peer reviewers started to call imaginative and original. But this was a long process of learning to be a scholar. I did not have "it" when I applied--evidenced by the 10 or so rejections I received. I finally acquired "it" later. 

So anyway, if I were you, I wouldn't feel too bad about what these people have told you about your writing sample. I'm guessing it was not "lacking"--at least no more lacking than the writing samples fielded by the vast majority of other candidates, some of whom they admitted.