Fall 2017 applicants

[krystasonrisa]

On 2/21/2017 at 3:46 AM, mementomoria said:

IU as in Indiana, yes? (Think I'm remembering things correctly...) I'm still waiting on them. I'm fairly sure it's waitlist or unfunded Masters at this point for me. I'm kinda disappointed. I got into another program that I'm 100% a-ok with, but IU was such a good fit for me...at least I thought so, anyway. Meh. Can go there for the intensive summer language program I badly need regardless of whether I get into the PhD program.

@mementomoria, have you heard any news yet? After one of my offers came with an early deadline for accepting funding, I broke down and emailed the DGS, and I got a really great, detailed reply. He responded very kindly, but also honestly, and I found out I'm basically on a waiting list, but not super high up on it. His exact words were "in the Top Cohort, but sufficiently removed from the top 10 that an offer may not be coming." He also said he didn't want me to lose hope because sometimes they have offered ppl at my ranking, but I wouldn't know until late march/early April. 

 

I hope you've heard better news! I'm happy it's not a flat reject yet! 

Edited February 26, 2017 by krystasonrisa
unfinished submit

[luz.colorada]

I see that a few people have heard back from University of Maryland's PhD program, but have any MA applicants heard anything?

[mementomoria]

2 hours ago, krystasonrisa said:

@mementomoria, have you heard any news yet? After one of my offers came with an early deadline for accepting funding, I broke down and emailed the DGS, and I got a really great, detailed reply. He responded very kindly, but also honestly, and I found out I'm basically on a waiting list, but not super high up on it. His exact words were "in the Top Cohort, but sufficiently removed from the top 10 that an offer may not be coming." He also said he didn't want me to lose hope because sometimes they have offered ppl at my ranking, but I wouldn't know until late march/early April. 

 

I hope you've heard better news! I'm happy it's not a flat reject yet! 

I, unfortunately, haven't heard anything yet. I was planning on waiting it out until the middle of March, since I don't need to accept at my other school until mid-April. But, hearing that your reply from the DGS was so thoughtful, I might reach out next week. I'm guessing (well, hoping) that I'm in a similar position to you, since it seems like the flat-out rejections have already been sent. I'd be sort of bummed to hear that a school so renowned in my (tiny) specialization wanted nothing to do with me. 

Here's hoping for both of us, and here's a big yay for getting into other institutions too!

[Neist]

41 minutes ago, mementomoria said:

I'd be bummed to hear that a school so renowned in my (tiny) specialization wanted nothing to do with me. 

 

Remember, the acceptance process is very holistic. And it's quite likely that the program's decisions are not entirely meritocratic. 

Ever heard the jokes about reviewer #2? For all you know, that program had a group of reviewer #2s on the admissions committee this year.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Neist
Ugh. Typos.

[psstein]

1 hour ago, Neist said:

Remember, the acceptance process is very holistic. And it's quite likely that the program's decisions are not entirely meritocratic.

Grad school acceptances are, if I'm correct, intensely arbitrary.

For example, I applied to (and was rejected by) Princeton's HoS. Little did I know that my PoI is in the early stages of retirement and is no longer accepting graduate students. Similarly, I was accepted to Wisconsin, which is a top 10 program, but I wasn't accepted into Indiana's HoS PhD, which while still prestigious, is considered a lower-tiered program.

 

[mementomoria]

2 hours ago, Neist said:

Ever heard the jokes about reviewer #2? For all you know, that program had a group of reviewer #2s on the admissions committee this year.

Heh, I'd actually never heard about reviewer #2, so I went and enjoyed a good 15 minutes worth of memes on the topic.

I'll try to keep this in mind. I've gotten to the point of being mostly okay with the reality and inevitablity of rejection...I'm still working on coming to terms with the arbitrary nature of it, though.

[Neist]

1 hour ago, mementomoria said:

Heh, I'd actually never heard about reviewer #2, so I went and enjoyed a good 15 minutes worth of memes on the topic.

I'll try to keep this in mind. I've gotten to the point of being mostly okay with the reality and inevitablity of rejection...I'm still working on coming to terms with the arbitrary nature of it, though.

 

 

The only aspect of admissions that I'd think is not as arbitrary are letters of recommendation. If you get the right recommendations from the right people, then you're gold.

Also, someone found this website about this time last year as everyone was waiting. If you liked those memes, you might consider looking this over.

http://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/

[Neist]

2 hours ago, psstein said:

Grad school acceptances are, if I'm correct, intensely arbitrary.

For example, I applied to (and was rejected by) Princeton's HoS. Little did I know that my PoI is in the early stages of retirement and is no longer accepting graduate students. Similarly, I was accepted to Wisconsin, which is a top 10 program, but I wasn't accepted into Indiana's HoS PhD, which while still prestigious, is considered a lower-tiered program.

 

Wisconsin is pretty good, indeed! It's one of the few not-quite-as-obvious good HoS departments out there. 

Out of curiosity, who was your PoI at Princeton? Also, if you end up going to Wisconsin, maybe we'll meet at Midwest Junto. I'm not going this year, but I'm probably going to attempt to attend next year.

[nevermind]

5 hours ago, psstein said:

Grad school acceptances are, if I'm correct, intensely arbitrary.

For example, I applied to (and was rejected by) Princeton's HoS. Little did I know that my PoI is in the early stages of retirement and is no longer accepting graduate students. Similarly, I was accepted to Wisconsin, which is a top 10 program, but I wasn't accepted into Indiana's HoS PhD, which while still prestigious, is considered a lower-tiered program.

 

 

I'm curious where you're finding rankings for HoS programs. I haven't been able to find anything out there. 

[Neist]

20 minutes ago, nevermind said:

I'm curious where you're finding rankings for HoS programs. I haven't been able to find anything out there. 

There is no formal ranking, but there's a general sense of who's good at what if you've been around a while, especially within sub-disciplines. However, most of that tacit knowledge is usually only applied to pure HoS programs and typically does not include STS programs. Admittedly, it's not a large pool.   

But like I said, sub-discipline matters a lot. U. of Oklahoma is probably one of the top 5 programs for early modern, but we'd probably be much lower with the history of medicine because there's not a lot of historians of medicine within the department. We'd be a pretty high ranking for book history as well because our connection with the university's collections (which is surprisingly vast).

Shame I'm not an early modernist, or I'd be in an even more fantastic place.  

[krystasonrisa]

I've been chastised for talking about the politics of higher education without a sock account on gradcafe, but I'm in graduate study precisely to be critical, and there are plenty of studies (one excellent project done by a Chilean colleague of mine for example) that show the relationship between university rankings, capital, and colonization.

The process is not so much random and arbitrary as it is political, but also, no, nothing about this process reveals your value as a scholar, whether you end up at Princeton or Southeast Missouri State.

There are also SO many intersecting factors, and to be very honest, while academia has done a relatively great job at incorporating traditionally marginalized communities, many OpEds this season have criticized academia's inability to be inclusive to working class students. Actually, I believe there's a conference specifically for these issues and for WC academics this Spring at IU. (Example: Someone talked about having the right LoR from just the right people. Odds are those "right" people don't work at community or small state schools. It's politics, not luck.)

Tl;Dr University rankings do not reveal your value or capacity as a scholar.  

P.S. by political, I don't mean to imply that it's shady or unfair or wrong, I mean political, as in something designed and talked about by people, as opposed to natural or random. 

[dr. t]

18 hours ago, psstein said:

Grad school acceptances are, if I'm correct, intensely arbitrary.

For example, I applied to (and was rejected by) Princeton's HoS. Little did I know that my PoI is in the early stages of retirement and is no longer accepting graduate students. Similarly, I was accepted to Wisconsin, which is a top 10 program, but I wasn't accepted into Indiana's HoS PhD, which while still prestigious, is considered a lower-tiered program.

 

I would caution against putting too much weight here. Yes, it's absolutely true that there's a large amount of noise in the system, and that the system doesn't actually simply place the best candidates at the best schools on some platonic level. But there is rhyme and reason here, and rejections from all schools, or from all schools of a certain tier, absolutely points to some underlying problem in an application. 

An applicant has no "objective value as a scholar", and of course a university's criteria for candidates are political constructs (nature is a political construct too, but I digress). But the political constructs Princeton uses to select its candidates correlate to the political constructs that underwrite what we view as scholarly success. There are real differences between candidates who get into Princeton and those who get into Missouri State - there are real differences between the applicants to those two programs - and it's not wise to gloss over that fact.

I say this not to be cruel - the application is not coterminous with the applicant - but to encourage the self-reflection and evaluation necessary for success.

Edited February 27, 2017 by telkanuru

[krystasonrisa]

13 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

An applicant has no "objective value as a scholar", and of course a university's criteria for candidates are political constructs (nature is a political construct too, but I digress). But the political constructs Princeton uses to select its candidates correlate to the political constructs that underwrite what we view as scholarly success. There are real differences between candidates who get into Princeton and those who get into Missouri State - there are real differences between the applicants to those two programs - and it's not wise to gloss over that fact.

It's also not wise (or kind) to ignore the many social factors that lend to "scholarly success." There are indeed real differences between the applicants to those two programs, and those differences almost always start with socioeconomic. 

[Neist]

1 hour ago, telkanuru said:

But the political constructs Princeton uses to select its candidates correlate to the political constructs that underwrite what we view as scholarly success.

 

This is a wonderfully articulated statement. And it highlights what I believe is a common assumption held by the general public that schools like Princeton are objectively better. They might be better, but only to particular ends.

1 hour ago, krystasonrisa said:

It's also not wise (or kind) to ignore the many social factors that lend to "scholarly success." There are indeed real differences between the applicants to those two programs, and those differences almost always start with socioeconomic. 

 

I agree with you, as long as we're discussing socioeconomic opportunity as broadly defined and complexly faceted. I think the greatest benefit in life is the opportunity, and I think opportunity does generally reflect socioeconomic class.

But it's more than one school accepting students based on the size of their bank account. If anything, well-to-do students probably received better primary and secondary education, making them better applicants. Or more stable home lives. Or any other variety of reasons.  

[AfricanusCrowther]

1 hour ago, telkanuru said:

There are real differences between candidates who get into Princeton and those who get into Missouri State - there are real differences between the applicants to those two programs - and it's not wise to gloss over that fact.

 

I'd be very interested to hear your speculate about the nature of those real differences when it comes to the top three programs. From my experience, those differences to do not produce superior scholarship, although this feeling may be motivated by resentment.

[dr. t]

2 hours ago, krystasonrisa said:

It's also not wise (or kind) to ignore the many social factors that lend to "scholarly success." There are indeed real differences between the applicants to those two programs, and those differences almost always start with socioeconomic. 

I never suggested that this wasn't the case. I suggest you re-read what I've written. Difference does not mean superiority. Are they socially constructed? Yes. Reinforcing current power structures? Yes. Biased? Yes. Bad? Yes.

There's no objective basis that establishes the system. That doesn't mean that there isn't a logic internal to that system. Recognizing that logic is the first step in manipulating it. This is a forum for applying to grad school, not overthrowing the neoliberal hegemony, as appealing as that might be.

32 minutes ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

I'd be very interested to hear your speculate about the nature of those real differences when it comes to the top three programs. From my experience, those differences to do not produce superior scholarship, although this feeling may be motivated by resentment.

The differences within the top three programs? I don't think there is anything substantial.

The differences between, say, the top three programs and, say ranks 20-50 (however you do that)? Funding, scope of inquiry, teaching vs. research expectations, the role the professors themselves see in guiding the discipline, the self-selection of applicants, and the networks which privilege and legitimize the scholarship such programs produce. I'm a firm believer in the idea that intelligence, particularly the sort of intelligence necessary for success in academia, is a learned trait, and upper-tier programs provide the template to which others mold themselves. 

But the ultimate point is that there's no objective ground for "superior scholarship". The top-tier programs produce the criteria on which scholarship is deemed "superior". 

To put it another way, when I say there are real differences between hypothetical candidates to the two programs above, I mean that the person who gets into Princeton has a better command of the socio-cultural performance (in the technical sense, not in terms of grades, etc.) expected of them.  

Edited February 27, 2017 by telkanuru

[dr. t]

1 hour ago, Neist said:

And it highlights what I believe is a common assumption held by the general public that schools like Princeton are objectively better. They might be better, but only to particular ends.

Yes, exactly. They are better at achieving the very things they, by virtue of their social position, are able to construct as desirable. The claim of superiority has no objective grounding (really, what does?), but that doesn't mean  you can ignore it.

Edited February 27, 2017 by telkanuru

[nhhistorynut]

I'm enjoying this conversation about ranking and schools. To throw in my two cents on a few topics...

3 hours ago, krystasonrisa said:

Someone talked about having the right LoR from just the right people. Odds are those "right" people don't work at community or small state schools. It's politics, not luck.

I see how the right person makes a difference, but I personally think it goes beyond the person. It's the right letter that really stands out. A name is nice, but what if that big name doesn't say what needs to be said? For my letters, I got three professors who, yes, have published books, but are not famous by any means. However, they know me well, one is the dept. chair and DGS at my MA school (and also my thesis advisor), and they wrote some amazing letters. At my interview a few weeks ago, the DGS at my PhD institution actually felt compelled to talk about how fantastic those letters were. Did he know who these professors were? No, but he appreciated what they had to say.

2 hours ago, krystasonrisa said:

It's also not wise (or kind) to ignore the many social factors that lend to "scholarly success." There are indeed real differences between the applicants to those two programs, and those differences almost always start with socioeconomic. 

Again, agreed here. I can say for myself, I did not go to one of those great schools. I paid for school myself (and by "paid" I mean "took out loans"), and certainly did not have the ability to go to Yale or Harvard or UCLA, etc. However, when it comes to...

2 hours ago, telkanuru said:

There are real differences between candidates who get into Princeton and those who get into Missouri State - there are real differences between the applicants to those two programs - and it's not wise to gloss over that fact.

It's important not to gloss over the very-real issue in higher ed of imposter syndrome. I think it especially common for women, and especially in male-dominated fields like history. Being a woman, I have often felt like I wasn't good enough and wasn't worthy of places like the top 20 (and, I didnt apply to them, and will instead go to a mid-ranked school that happens to have a pretty big-named faculty member who will serve as my advisor). It didn't matter how many A's I got or how many professors in my MA program called my work "superb" or how many research grants I was awarded, I was still pretty sure I wasn't very good at what I did. I've got a pretty good confidence boost now, though, after getting into my choice school, but there's still that sense that I'm just not good enough.

I'd say this feeling is pretty universal. I see on these boards all the time that people "aren't surprised" by their rejections from top tier schools. Likewise, people are "shocked" when they get into those programs.

So, all this is to point out that there certainly are differences between applicants, but sometimes really great historians don't feel worthy and therefore don't even bother applying.

Anyways, that's just my two cents here. For those of us not going to the top schools, I think we'll have to work twice as hard to get published, to network at conferences, and to prove ourselves. At the end of the day, when applying for jobs, it helps to have friends in high places.

[AfricanusCrowther]

53 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

But the ultimate point is that there's no objective ground for "superior scholarship". The top-tier programs produce the criteria on which scholarship is deemed "superior".  

Okay. I am not an anti-constructivist, but I also think that name brand matters for placement, particularly outside top research universities (i.e., "I'm not a Japanese historian, but how bad could a person with a Yale PhD be?"), and, for admissions, other prestige factors unrelated to the socially agreed upon measures of quality scholarship play a role (i.e., "This candidate won a Marshall and went to Harvard undergrad, and both Africanist candidates have decent writing samples, so between the two..."). This is my attempt to explain why people who produce shockingly bad scholarship (again, by these very guild-history standards that are apparently enforced by the top programs) but with HYP PhDs still get great jobs.

Edited February 27, 2017 by AfricanusCrowther

[dr. t]

55 minutes ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

Okay. I am not an anti-constructivist, but I also think that name brand matters for placement, particularly outside top research universities (i.e., "I'm not a Japanese historian, but how bad could a person with a Yale PhD be?"), and, for admissions, other prestige factors unrelated to the socially agreed upon measures of quality scholarship play a role (i.e., "This candidate won a Marshall and went to Harvard undergrad, and both Africanist candidates have decent writing samples, so between the two..."). This is my attempt to explain why people who produce shockingly bad scholarship (again, by these very guild-history standards that are apparently enforced by the top programs) but with HYP PhDs still get great jobs.

No, absolutely. There's even some studies floating around on academic hiring practices that suggest the same conclusions. 

[dr. t]

58 minutes ago, nhhistorynut said:

So, all this is to point out that there certainly are differences between applicants, but sometimes really great historians don't feel worthy and therefore don't even bother applying.

Yes! I had a bit in my original about self-selection among applicants, but it seems I edited it out somewhere. It definitely takes a certain level of self-confidence/arrogance to apply to Princeton in the first place. In addition to the phenomena you describe, ideas about "safety" and "reach" schools - ideas not particularly suited to PhD apps - still have strong currency. 

[psstein]

5 hours ago, telkanuru said:

I would caution against putting too much weight here. Yes, it's absolutely true that there's a large amount of noise in the system, and that the system doesn't actually simply place the best candidates at the best schools on some platonic level. But there is rhyme and reason here, and rejections from all schools, or from all schools of a certain tier, absolutely points to some underlying problem in an application. 

An applicant has no "objective value as a scholar", and of course a university's criteria for candidates are political constructs (nature is a political construct too, but I digress). But the political constructs Princeton uses to select its candidates correlate to the political constructs that underwrite what we view as scholarly success. There are real differences between candidates who get into Princeton and those who get into Missouri State - there are real differences between the applicants to those two programs - and it's not wise to gloss over that fact.

I say this not to be cruel - the application is not coterminous with the applicant - but to encourage the self-reflection and evaluation necessary for success.

I agree with you. There is a certain degree of competence and ability required for a certain level of institution. As I said, though, there's also questions of fit/retirement/etc.

[psstein]

17 hours ago, nevermind said:

I'm curious where you're finding rankings for HoS programs. I haven't been able to find anything out there. 

PhDs.org has a few, though rankings relative to history departments aren't exactly easy to figure out. Rankings for HoS seem to boil down mostly to institutional reputation, with exceptions, of course.

[psstein]

20 hours ago, Neist said:

Wisconsin is pretty good, indeed! It's one of the few not-quite-as-obvious good HoS departments out there. 

Out of curiosity, who was your PoI at Princeton? Also, if you end up going to Wisconsin, maybe we'll meet at Midwest Junto. I'm not going this year, but I'm probably going to attempt to attend next year.

Grafton was my PoI and the advisor of one of my LoR writers.

I have a second interview/campus visit at Hopkins in two days, so hopefully it'll come down to either Hopkins or Wisconsin.

[Qqq12]

Has anyone heard from the Dept. of the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins?