Chances for PhD Programs

[Hopeful2010]

Hello all,

As you can see, I'm new to the boards and I just finished my application process for the Fall 2010 semester for PhD in History programs. I was hoping I could receive some input on what you all thought my chances might be at the school's I'm applying to based on the information I'm about to provide. I'm super nervous about the process because this is really the first time that I've had to be because I went to a lower tier school on scholarship in order to play baseball.

Here's my information:

- 1260 GRE (600 V/86%, 660 Q/62%, 5.0 W/81%)

- 3.75 GPA (3.8 in History)

- Served as an undergraduate research assistant on a book to be published on the subject I wish to do my graduate study on

- Will serve as an undergraduate teaching assistant in a course pertaining to the subject I want to study this upcoming Spring

- Currently a member of the international project team Creating Community: The Casablanca-Kennesaw Project, which is an international museum project between my university and a university in Morocco based on oral history

- Served as an intern at a historical museum in the field of study that I want to enter

- Lectured at a historical museum's Summer Institute for High School Students and Teachers on the topic of World War II and its Aftermath

- Received Dean's List Honors 3 times and President's List Honors 3 times

- I played baseball for 2 semesters until I had a career ending injury that required surgery (not really sure if this pertains or not)

- Nominated for my university's Outstanding Senior History Major Award

- Co-curated a travelling museum exhibit on propaganda during World War II

- Reading fluent in French and currently working on German

- Made an A+ on my senior thesis which I am using as my writing sample

That's the basis of my credentials, I didn't any clubs or anything of that sort. Probably some more pertinent information would be that my broad research field would be Modern Europe and Africa with a focus on comparative genocide and that I applied to Emory, UGA, UNC, Indiana, WUSTL, Vanderbilt, and Boston College. Also, two of my recommenders have extensive connections at Emory, UNC, Indiana, and Boston College. Again, any of your input is greatly appreciated, as I am more nervous about this process than anything I've ever done.

[TMP]

History PhD admissions is compelete crapshoot. Take a look at previous year's thread. Let the nervouseness go, and get a Plan B that you can be excited about. It helped me. It also helped me and others just to put together a list of things to do to pass the time (movies and books you've wanted to see/read, etc).

[Hopeful2010]

History PhD admissions is compelete crapshoot. Take a look at previous year's thread. Let the nervouseness go, and get a Plan B that you can be excited about. It helped me. It also helped me and others just to put together a list of things to do to pass the time (movies and books you've wanted to see/read, etc).

Thanks for the advice. I've been told by my letter writers also that it's a crapshoot, but I was hoping that on this board I would be able to get at least some input from people who have either been through the process or are going through it as to what my chances might be solely on my numbers and softs. Again, I really appreciate the advice and I'll try to take that to heart after I finish up this semester's finals!

[jacib]

On 12/9/2009 at 3:51 PM, Hopeful2010 said:

That's the basis of my credentials, I didn't any clubs or anything of that sort. Probably some more pertinent information would be that my broad research field would be Modern Europe and Africa with a focus on comparative genocide and that I applied to Emory, UGA, UNC, Indiana, WUSTL, Vanderbilt, and Boston College. Also, two of my recommenders have extensive connections at Emory, UNC, Indiana, and Boston College. Again, any of your input is greatly appreciated, as I am more nervous about this process than anything I've ever done.

Your test scores aren't the highest nor the lowest (who the hell knows what "average" or "minimum" is and every school weights them differently). However, what you've done seems pretty cool. I would be wicked impressed by that "go-getter" attitude if I were a professor and those things fit my own interests. Now the magic word is "fit". I recently emailed the graduate coordinator at Harvard (in sociology--I'm not applying to history programs, I'm just procrastinating for a moment), and he said, without seeing my grades, scores, or even undergrad institution:

"[Harvard] Sociology will not be able to serve your interests, as there are no sociologists of religion in the department, and as no one studies Turkey. Unlikely that we would admit someone with your interests. We have to look closely at program-applicant fit these days, particularly given that we have very few spots (last year, 8 spots for 260 applicants).

 

I hope this is helpful. Perhaps Princeton or Berkeley sociology? " (though they do have a department of Turkish and Ottoman studies at Harvard, and one sociology professor who lists "religion" as one of his research interests, and a long history of training sociologists of religion).

Though that was for a very particularly selective sociology department, I think that's the way it is in general these days. I think the key is selling yourself to a department. For sociology departments where the emphasis is on politics rather than religion, that's what I'm putting in my statement. Sell yourself to their research interests. Hopefully I'll be able to do what I want once I get there, but before that I need to really "emphasize selectively" my goals and history.

[ChibaCityBlues]

The tales of disappointment that seem to be prevalent on this forum come from people who don't seem to take the application processes seriously. They decide which universities to apply to based on where they want to graduate from instead of who they want to work with. They come up with inadequately defined or inappropriate research topics that undoubtedly reflect their interest in History, but do not indicate the applicants awareness that they are actually applying to become professional academics.

The fact of the matter is that if an applicant goes about the process properly, applying to PhD programs is not a crap shoot. It should go without saying that applicants need to have good academic records. If that is what one is stressing over, then I would recommend not even applying. Beyond that, no one should be applying anywhere unless they have a pretty good indication that they will be seriously considered. This is ascertained not by hoping and praying, but by being in contact with potential advisers and graduate program directors. It doesn't take a lot of time to email a professor asking if they would be interesting in working with you given your research interests. In the end, any number of reasons might mitigate against one's application, but being dully diligent and only applying to places you know you're wanted increases your odds of being accepted well above what the game of craps has to offer.

[BCHistory]

The tales of disappointment that seem to be prevalent on this forum come from people who don't seem to take the application processes seriously. They decide which universities to apply to based on where they want to graduate from instead of who they want to work with. They come up with inadequately defined or inappropriate research topics that undoubtedly reflect their interest in History, but do not indicate the applicants awareness that they are actually applying to become professional academics.

The fact of the matter is that if an applicant goes about the process properly, applying to PhD programs is not a crap shoot. It should go without saying that applicants need to have good academic records. If that is what one is stressing over, then I would recommend not even applying. Beyond that, no one should be applying anywhere unless they have a pretty good indication that they will be seriously considered. This is ascertained not by hoping and praying, but by being in contact with potential advisers and graduate program directors. It doesn't take a lot of time to email a professor asking if they would be interesting in working with you given your research interests. In the end, any number of reasons might mitigate against one's application, but being dully diligent and only applying to places you know you're wanted increases your odds of being accepted well above what the game of craps has to offer.

Amen to that!!!

[StrangeLight]

some people have strong academic records, apply to programs with a good fit and a potential advisor interested in working with them, take time on their SOP and writing sample, have strong LORs, and they still don't get in anywhere. people who strike out completely aren't solely the ill-prepared.

i hope for both of you that your applications are well received and you have your choice of schools, but having been through this process twice (for a journalism masters and a history PhD), i can tell you that "crapshoot" is a rather fair assessment of the process, especially for last year's admissions cycle. the financial crisis dramatically dropped the number of spaces available in most grad programs. schools that would normally accept 20 new students were only taking on 7 or 8. entire subfields were shut out of the running. some schools only took students who already had masters degrees so they could have an entire cohort that didn't require masters classes.

say there are 9 spots total. your potential advisor and another professor are battling over who gets the 9th student. if your potential advisor wins, you're in. if he or she doesn't, because that prof doesn't have the same record of achievement or has a few advisees already, then you're out. that has NOTHING to do with how well you prepare your application or what kind of rapport you establish with your potential advisor ahead of time, and the "it's my turn for an advisee" argument is fairly common in any grad program.

so... again. best of luck to you both, but realize that the people who were shut out completely last year weren't necessarily weak applicants applying to the wrong schools without contacting advisors ahead of time.

[virmundi]

some people have strong academic records, apply to programs with a good fit and a potential advisor interested in working with them, take time on their SOP and writing sample, have strong LORs, and they still don't get in anywhere. people who strike out completely aren't solely the ill-prepared.

i hope for both of you that your applications are well received and you have your choice of schools, but having been through this process twice (for a journalism masters and a history PhD), i can tell you that "crapshoot" is a rather fair assessment of the process, especially for last year's admissions cycle. the financial crisis dramatically dropped the number of spaces available in most grad programs. schools that would normally accept 20 new students were only taking on 7 or 8. entire subfields were shut out of the running. some schools only took students who already had masters degrees so they could have an entire cohort that didn't require masters classes.

say there are 9 spots total. your potential advisor and another professor are battling over who gets the 9th student. if your potential advisor wins, you're in. if he or she doesn't, because that prof doesn't have the same record of achievement or has a few advisees already, then you're out. that has NOTHING to do with how well you prepare your application or what kind of rapport you establish with your potential advisor ahead of time, and the "it's my turn for an advisee" argument is fairly common in any grad program.

so... again. best of luck to you both, but realize that the people who were shut out completely last year weren't necessarily weak applicants applying to the wrong schools without contacting advisors ahead of time.

Absolutely spot on, StrangeLight -- including the smiley at the beginning of your post.

[catilina]

I find this emphasis on "fit" baffling and annoying. I have been in a Ph.D. program before--different field (English) and more than fifteen years ago, but I felt like my research interests were formed in the seminars I took. I don't even remember what I wrote in my statement of purpose, but I can guarantee it had nothing to do with where I ended up. Also, I don't recall any pressure to have one particular "advisor" in mind the second I walked through the door--that came later in the process, as it should.

Also there isn't always a good way to get a feel for "fit" from departmental websites, etc. And there is certainly no way to understand departmental politics.

I guess if you are truly committed to one particular course of study and are 100% sure you want to see it all the way through, then "fit" would become a major issue. But I think it is okay to have a range of interests and want to take some classes before you narrow into one particular area of specialization--it doesn't mean you are a worse candidate.

This all definitely looks like a "crapshoot" to me. I contacted some professors, and got very polite responses back from all--some generic, some that expressed specific interest in my research topic--but who knows if they mean it or not?

I'm also somewhat annoyed at the idea that it is somehow frivolous to base the decision on where to apply on the program's ranking as opposed to "fit." The fact is that the higher ranked program you go to, the better the job you will get in the end. The idea that having an advisor who is a good fit for the research interests you have before you even start the program is more important than the program's ranking is utterly ludicrous. I don't want to generate controversy, but that is a fact.

Actually, I couldn't care less about the prestige factor or snob appeal of a particular school. (Too old? Just past all of that.) But, I'm concentrating on the rankings as the best way to try to end up with an actual academic career. Of course I paid some attention to fit within that framework, but for the most part, kept my applications to top 15 programs. If I don't get in, I'll improve my application and try again next year.

[rising_star]

I guess if you are truly committed to one particular course of study and are 100% sure you want to see it all the way through, then "fit" would become a major issue. But I think it is okay to have a range of interests and want to take some classes before you narrow into one particular area of specialization--it doesn't mean you are a worse candidate.

Okay, I'm not in history but here's my $0.02. I don't think anyone is 100% committed to something before starting, nor do I think grad schools want that. I had some general ideas about the subfield in which I wanted to work and the methodology and theoretical framework I wanted to use, which is what I used to decide on "fit". Like, if you're really interested in Soviet history, why apply to programs with no Soviet historians? You won't get to take seminars that will help you refine and develop your interests if the program has no one to teach them. Maybe history is totally different than my discipline and taking coursework outside of your research interest is what you do for the entire coursework portion of the program...

This all definitely looks like a "crapshoot" to me. I contacted some professors, and got very polite responses back from all--some generic, some that expressed specific interest in my research topic--but who knows if they mean it or not?

If you suspect the people you might want to work with are lying, why even bother applying? I'm saying this in all seriousness. If you don't think their interest in your research topic is genuine, why waste the time/money applying? Or, is it that you think they find the research topic interesting but aren't actually interested in working with you?

I'm also somewhat annoyed at the idea that it is somehow frivolous to base the decision on where to apply on the program's ranking as opposed to "fit." The fact is that the higher ranked program you go to, the better the job you will get in the end. The idea that having an advisor who is a good fit for the research interests you have before you even start the program is more important than the program's ranking is utterly ludicrous. I don't want to generate controversy, but that is a fact.

Why is it a fact? Because you said so? It doesn't matter if the program is ranked #1 if there's no one that can advise the research that you want to do. The ranking certainly won't help you if you never get accepted.

Furthermore, there's no guarantee that going to a higher ranked program will get you a better job. Why? Because your research, its quality, your teaching evaluations, and your peer-reviewed publications all play a factor in where you get a job. If you go to the #1 program but don't ever publish and don't write a quality dissertation, you're going to lose out on jobs to people attending lower-ranked schools every time. So yea, I'm not really sure how it's a fact that everything aside from program ranking is ludicrous, unless that's just what you tell yourself to justify your application strategy.

Actually, I couldn't care less about the prestige factor or snob appeal of a particular school. (Too old? Just past all of that.) But, I'm concentrating on the rankings as the best way to try to end up with an actual academic career. Of course I paid some attention to fit within that framework, but for the most part, kept my applications to top 15 programs. If I don't get in, I'll improve my application and try again next year.

So do you actually have people you're interested in working with at all of these programs? Or are you applying to them solely because of their ranking? And, if so, which set of rankings did you use?

[Sparky]

Catilina, it's true that the ranking of the program you attend has a lot of say in whether or not your job applications will get looked at...but whether or not you are a good fit for that particular program has a lot of say in whether you will be admitted.

I think that maybe you are conceiving of "fit" too narrowly? I mean, it's one thing to say, as an applicant, "I want to write my dissertation about the depiction of blonde-haired angels in late medieval church art, which is studied by Dr. Who, using psychoanalytic theory as developed by Kristeva and Kaplan, whcih Dr. Who and Dr. Companion both use." OKay, that's maybe a little over the top. But "fit" conceived more broadly would be along the lines of: if my interest is a topic such as the economic impact of the changing definition of rape in high medieval England, then I would make sure I apply to programs with specialists in medieval economic history, medieval women, AND a general strength in English history and lit. Because I might not write my dissertation about that specific topic, but it's a good indication that my general interests are along those lines. Stuff like that.

[catilina]

Of course, there are people who are focused on a particular area that might make "fit" a major issue--Soviet history, medieval, to use the examples cited above.

I'm just annoyed that it is a disadvantage to have more diverse interests. I have tailored my statement of purpose to the particular topic I have been working on most recently, but I see other directions I could go in happily.

I stand by my statement that the rankings determine whether/where you get a job. I have been in a Ph.D. program before, and I've seen it all play out. Go to the departments you are interested and see where the faculty members got their PhDs from. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but for the most part, the good faculty positions are filled by people who come out of top programs.

Some of it depends on what kind of job you'd be happy with, of course.

As I said, I have paid attention to "fit" in determining which of the top schools I applied to. I even eliminated a couple of schools I was initially interested because I just couldn't find a good match among the faculty. Within a certain range, I would definitely go to a lower ranked school if there was someone in particular I was excited about working with. But if I had an offer from a top 10 that didn't have a particular faculty member who stood out, and a top 30 who had someone great, I would go to the top 10 and let my interests evolve in a different direction.

And as for professor responses, it's not that I think they are "lying." I just think people want to be polite. I wouldn't expect to have someone say "I scanned your e-mail and off the top of my head, I think your research proposal is boring or stupid." Of course they are going to say some positive. That doesn't tell you if they think your proposal stands out from the crowd.

[catilina]

And to the original poster, I wouldn't worry at all about having gone to Kennesaw State. You have a good reason for going there, and you did well. What more can people ask of you? Your objective data are good and you seem to have a well demonstrated commitment to history. Plus, you are applying to a good mix of programs. I think you'll do fine.

[Caligula]

I have a more general (and perhaps ignorant) question: what is considered to be a "top" program? Top 10? Top 20? Top 15?

[TMP]

Of course, there are people who are focused on a particular area that might make "fit" a major issue--Soviet history, medieval, to use the examples cited above.

I'm just annoyed that it is a disadvantage to have more diverse interests. I have tailored my statement of purpose to the particular topic I have been working on most recently, but I see other directions I could go in happily.

I stand by my statement that the rankings determine whether/where you get a job. I have been in a Ph.D. program before, and I've seen it all play out. Go to the departments you are interested and see where the faculty members got their PhDs from. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but for the most part, the good faculty positions are filled by people who come out of top programs.

Some of it depends on what kind of job you'd be happy with, of course.

As I said, I have paid attention to "fit" in determining which of the top schools I applied to. I even eliminated a couple of schools I was initially interested because I just couldn't find a good match among the faculty. Within a certain range, I would definitely go to a lower ranked school if there was someone in particular I was excited about working with. But if I had an offer from a top 10 that didn't have a particular faculty member who stood out, and a top 30 who had someone great, I would go to the top 10 and let my interests evolve in a different direction.

And as for professor responses, it's not that I think they are "lying." I just think people want to be polite. I wouldn't expect to have someone say "I scanned your e-mail and off the top of my head, I think your research proposal is boring or stupid." Of course they are going to say some positive. That doesn't tell you if they think your proposal stands out from the crowd.

That's the tricky part about writing the SOP. You don't want to seem broad, nor do you want to come off as narrow. That's why you need to show your SOP to professors for feedback.

Two things that one of the professors at a top 10 said to me:

1) A survey showed that 75% of people holding history degrees AND are tenured were from top 10 programs. So you're on the money with that one. Yet, as it's been pointed out, if you've been VERY productive in your top 20-30 PhD program with a go-getter advisor, you'll have a bit of easier time finding a job.

2) Committees are more likely to throw out "narrow" applicants than "broad" applicants because they fear that the "narrow" applicants will fail out of the program just because they won't try out other things.

As StrangeLight have said elsewhere, the most thing is to have someone in your topical or geographical field to be excited about your proposed questions and ideas. And nobody knows, not even the faculty members themselves, what will happen in January/February when all applications are read and it's time to narrow down the list.

As for being particularly selective, some people can't actually apply to a top 10 program because there's just NOBODY there doing what they want to do. For me, there's only one top 10 school that I can apply to only because I'm there now for the MA program and I'd like to keep working with my advisor if opportunity arises. Otherwise, my other programs are anywhere between top 15 to 30. And they happen to be very good fits for me. So I'm not going to complain or conform my interests just because I won't be able to graduate from a top 10 program.

[ChibaCityBlues]

I'm just annoyed that it is a disadvantage to have more diverse interests. I have tailored my statement of purpose to the particular topic I have been working on most recently, but I see other directions I could go in happily.

That's like being annoyed that one has to get wet in order to swim. I think you have the wrong idea about what an SOP is supposed to communicate. It isn't just about describing what you are interested in researching. It's about demonstrating that you are capable of conceptualizing an appropriate dissertation topic that can be appropriately researched, that can be appropriately overseen by a faculty member, and most importantly, that is relevant in terms of contemporary scholarship on the subject. Without accomplishing all these things in your SOP, your application won't be seriously considered. Most graduate students do change their research topics during the course of their studies, but at least their SOPs demonstrated that they are aware of what a properly scoped dissertation topic looks like. Remember, the requirements of a dissertation have already been determined. You are applying to have to opportunity to meet those requirements. If those requirements are offensive to you, then why bother applying?

But if I had an offer from a top 10 that didn't have a particular faculty member who stood out, and a top 30 who had someone great, I would go to the top 10 and let my interests evolve in a different direction.

The point isn't that you should accept the offer from the lower ranked school over the higher ranked school just because the fit is better at the lower ranked school, but rather that you aren't going to get an offer from the higher ranked school in the first place if the fit isn't there. As such, if only to save money on admissions fees, there is no point in applying to highly ranked programs unless the fit is there. Nothing to get upset about. Those are just the rules of the game you are asking to participate in.

Edited December 13, 2009 by ChibaCityBlues

[StrangeLight]

as others have said, "fit" is about getting admitted. it's not about your potential for hiring once you've finished your degree.

and it's not really hard to find places that fit. look at your favourite books. track down those professors. see how broadly they're willing to advise you on a topic. if they don't want to leave their particular niche, that may not be the place to go if you envision yourself coming up with something dramatically different. if they seem fairly open to advising a variety of projects (this variety should be expressed over the phone or in emails, but not in your SOP), then you can change your mind when you get there.

every single grad student changes their topic or refines their interests or sees their dissertation go in different directions from the SOP. the point of the SOP is to prove that you are capable of writing a proposal for a potential research topic. you're not held to that topic, but some advisors may have limits on how far they will let you stray from it. talk to them during the admissions process and see if they'll advise on something outside of their own specialty. if you really think you might change your interests dramatically between now and the MA or now and the PhD, then don't apply to those schools.

[Billy Rubin]

wow, excellent post. from a newbie to this forum, thank you.

The tales of disappointment that seem to be prevalent on this forum come from people who don't seem to take the application processes seriously. They decide which universities to apply to based on where they want to graduate from instead of who they want to work with. They come up with inadequately defined or inappropriate research topics that undoubtedly reflect their interest in History, but do not indicate the applicants awareness that they are actually applying to become professional academics.

The fact of the matter is that if an applicant goes about the process properly, applying to PhD programs is not a crap shoot. It should go without saying that applicants need to have good academic records. If that is what one is stressing over, then I would recommend not even applying. Beyond that, no one should be applying anywhere unless they have a pretty good indication that they will be seriously considered. This is ascertained not by hoping and praying, but by being in contact with potential advisers and graduate program directors. It doesn't take a lot of time to email a professor asking if they would be interesting in working with you given your research interests. In the end, any number of reasons might mitigate against one's application, but being dully diligent and only applying to places you know you're wanted increases your odds of being accepted well above what the game of craps has to offer.