General Advice After Two Years of Rejection

[GL551]

At a certain point in time, like anything else, the industry of academia is going to let you know if you're a good fit or not. After two years of applying (with extremely limited success) I'm debating on whether to apply next year or not. With that in mind, I'd like some general advice as to what might be some critical problems that I've overlooked or what my mindset should be going into next year's application cycle.

Preliminary background: I'm applying to programs in the social sciences and humanities. I have three B.S.'s  from a smaller to medium sized state school, and over the past two years I've spread my applications across upper mid-range to top-tier PhD programs (essentially choosing to forgo a terminal MA program due to a lack of funding).

Here's my stat breakdown thus far:

GPA: 3.4 (admittedly some shoddy spots here - a couple F's my junior year, and my major GPA is only slightly better at 3.5)

GRE: 165/155/6

LoR's: Four solid ones from professor's I worked with on and off throughout my undergrad

SoP: Solid - I should think - it's been through numerous revisions. I've had five different professors read it and two friends who are current grad students.

Conferences presentations: I'm well into the double digits at this point. I've presented research at numerous conferences both as an undergrad and a post-bacc and conferences have ranged from professional academic conferences to smaller undergraduate/graduate conferences.

Academic Publications: Three, with two more under review. One publication is in a higher impact journal, two are in undergraduate journals. My two under review are currently with a mid-impact journal and an undergrad/post-bacc journal.

Teaching Experience: I've taught a class with a professor, currently teach inner-city students through a program with my department, and have been a tutor in my field  on and off for two years.

Misc Items: I've served as a president for various clubs, was on my student government, volunteered a lot over several years with various academic bodies, received a few minor grants and awards for my papers and conference presentations, have been a grader for two professors, and was an editor for my school news paper for a year.

Now it's possible I'm just overestimating my application competitiveness. Whenever I look at my application packet (certainly relative to my peers at my alma mater) I think it looks competitive enough to apply to upper mid level to higher level programs. After two years of applications - I'm willing to just chalk up my long string of rejections (18 applications total, 15 rejections, 3 "acceptances" after filtering my app to the MA level with no funding to speak of) to either poor fit, not being cut out for better programs, or just a weak GPA compared to what others are bringing to the table. But who knows - maybe I'm falling victim to some classic mistake that I just haven't caught on to yet. 

My former professors haven't been able to offer any serious advice. My mentor has repeatedly stated that I should get in and essentially encourages me to keep applying until something works out. My department chair has suggested that maybe I'm aiming to high and should look toward mid to lower tier PhD programs or simply apply to an MA. My other professors have expressed some level of shock that I haven't gotten into a decent PhD program yet, and essentially repeat that it's all "fit" and maybe I just didn't "fit" as well as other candidates did these past two years. Needless to say I'm putting all this out there in the off chance that maybe it's not just luck, but that I've missed something. Any advice or notes on potential red flags would be appreciated.

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by GL551

[fuzzylogician]

You didn't describe anything that sounds like an obvious red flag. But some thoughts that are more like musings that you might answer in your application and should not by themselves lead to a rejection; but they might help you get started debriefing this season:  

- three B.S. degrees? That's two too many. Why are you doing so many undergraduate degrees, instead of focusing on something? 

- you have a lot of presentations and publications in very low impact venues. I would stop doing that; some are okay, but too many and one worries about your choices and the impact of your work. It starts to look like padding, and you don't need that. Better concentrate on one really good outcome rather than multiple mediocre ones. 

- I assume the publications and presentations speak to research experience, but you didn't discuss that. If you ended up discussing your publications and where you presented instead of discussing the work itself and what you learned from it, that's another potential problem. You want to discuss the motivation for the work and what it taught you; the deliverables (presentations and such) could be mentioned as an afterthought or left on your CV. What counts is being able to explain what you did and why it matters. 

- Similarly, is there cohesion to these past experiences? Do you know what you want to study in the future? In other words, it could very well be a 'fit' issue, from what I can tell. I would take a serious look at that. 

In short: there could possibly be a concern about cohesion, a vision for your future, and making good choices in your research, as well as fit, as you have already been told. Are these things that your application addresses? (Disclaimer: this is just a guess, based on what you've written here; I could be way off base.)

[GL551]

6 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

You didn't describe anything that sounds like an obvious red flag. But some thoughts that are more like musings that you might answer in your application and should not by themselves lead to a rejection; but they might help you get started debriefing this season...

Well my first question is: why would three degrees be a problem? I double majored and my third degree was somewhat incidental to taking a number of classes over that period (I also qualified for two minors). Now I should confess that I have spent over seven years in college taking various classes (learning an extra language, taking some literature classes that really interested me, etc.) - whether that is an issue or not might be an interesting point of discussion. My mentor suggested that picking up a few extra B.S. degrees over my undergrad/post-bacc career certainly couldn't hurt application.

The conferences and publications are a strange one - like I said I have one publication in a higher impact peer-reviewed journal (which I'm told is an impressive feat for an undergrad in the social sciences). I'm hoping to get another publication in this mid-tier impact journal soon, but these things seem to take the the better part of year so who knows?

The cohesion angle is interesting - one I certainly haven't considered. If I'm being honest my publications are scattered. One is in history, one is in sociology, another is in economics, and the two under review are in sociology and psychology respectively. My conference presentations have ranged from topics in education and journalism to modern art theory. I like being well-rounded I suppose. But I will admit that it is extraordinarily difficult to bundle everything together into a neat package. Shouldn't being well-rounded be seen as a positive thing though? Certainly specialization is critical in contemporary academia, but would it really preclude me from entering into an upper-echelon grad program?

I tend, in both my letter and CV, to highlight the fact that I have done a lot of different things and am capable of speaking to a wide array of topics. Is that really a negative in this day and age?

[ThousandsHardships]

@GL551 I wouldn't rule out a terminal MA at this point. If you have your heart set on doing a PhD, considering applying to MA programs at different schools, including lower ranked ones. With your experience, you should get into at least one MA program that is willing to fund you. Give your GPA a chance to grow and your research a chance to focus during this MA program and apply to PhD programs with that under your belt.

That said, I understand completely how you feel. I have two BAs and one BS from a top institution, and a concurrent MA and MS from another. My undergrad transcript was fairly impressive but unfocused, and my master's helped me focus but created a bunch of other problems -- not realizing what I wanted until late in the game, having a couple of below-average grades, not getting along with the department that matters for my future PhD, etc. I put my heart into this application season, did everything I possibly could, and, get this, MOST of the people I know in my field have gotten acceptances from 4/5, 5/6, 2/4, 1/1 of their programs. This wasn't supposed to be competitive, and I've won awards in this field before. I applied to ten schools, and I'm sitting at only one acceptance, and I've been waiting on funding since January and so am not sure I'd be able to go.

I asked the people who rejected me after a waitlist and they told me that I was a strong candidate and have had impressive accomplishments but that I may have to do another master's to prove that I'm now on track and to get better letters of rec. It's really depressing, but it feels like the only real way to start with a clean slate in the event that I don't get funding.

Edited March 28, 2017 by ThousandsHardships

[ThousandsHardships]

2 minutes ago, GL551 said:

Well my first question is: why would three degrees be a problem? I double majored and my third degree was somewhat incidental to taking a number of classes over that period (I also qualified for two minors). Now I should confess that I have spent over seven years in college taking various classes (learning an extra language, taking some literature classes that really interested me, etc.) - whether that is an issue or not might be an interesting point of discussion. My mentor suggested that picking up a few extra B.S. degrees over my undergrad/post-bacc career certainly couldn't hurt application.

The conferences and publications are a strange one - like I said I have one publication in a higher impact peer-reviewed journal (which I'm told is an impressive feat for an undergrad in the social sciences). I'm hoping to get another publication in this mid-tier impact journal soon, but these things seem to take the the better part of year so who knows?

The cohesion angle is interesting - one I certainly haven't considered. If I'm being honest my publications are scattered. One is in history, one is in sociology, another is in economics, and the two under review are in sociology and psychology respectively. My conference presentations have ranged from topics in education and journalism to modern art theory. I like being well-rounded I suppose. But I will admit that it is extraordinarily difficult to bundle everything together into a neat package. Shouldn't being well-rounded be seen as a positive thing though? Certainly specialization is critical in contemporary academia, but would it really preclude me from entering into an upper-echelon grad program?

I tend, in both my letter and CV, to highlight the fact that I have done a lot of different things and am capable of speaking to a wide array of topics. Is that really a negative in this day and age?

Yes, I would say the lack of cohesion in your publications looks a bit like you're unfocused for your graduate career. I don't think your three degrees will hurt you as long as you can prove your focus. Being well-rounded is a plus and it's good to elaborate on that, but not at the expense of having a research focus. If you want to go into a PhD program, you need to be able to choose something as the center. All your other interests, though they may support your goals, are in the periphery.

[GL551]

3 minutes ago, ThousandsHardships said:

Yes, I would say the lack of cohesion in your publications looks a bit like you're unfocused for your graduate career. I don't think your three degrees will hurt you as long as you can prove your focus. Being well-rounded is a plus and it's good to elaborate on that, but not at the expense of having a research focus. If you want to go into a PhD program, you need to be able to choose something as the center. All your other interests, though they may support your goals, are in the periphery.

Cheers - thank you. Like I said, I have ruled out MA's thus far but I'm rapidly thinking that some type of terminal MA or MS program might be the only way to go at this juncture. I haven't seen any MA's that offer funding in the US; at least not in the social sciences. So far all the programs that I've been filtered into after PhD rejections have offered utterly pathetic partial scholarships (1/3 or 1/2 tuition at best). I typically state in letters that my research focus is a blend of history and sociology (two topics big enough to encompass the bulk of my research). 

I'm sympathetic to your situation. Despite being the only undergraduate in the history of my department who has ever had a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal and having a stuffed CV four pages longer than any other candidate who has applied in the past three years; I have seen virtually every other student I have worked with go on to decently funded PhD programs. Whatever constitutes "fit" may well be tied into the fact that I am simply not as hyper-specialized as those other students. That just baffles me. How can being well-read across the board and capable of researching a variety of disparate topics be a hindrance to one's academic career? That concept even sounded insane to me as I read this out-loud to myself.

[ThousandsHardships]

1 hour ago, GL551 said:

Cheers - thank you. Like I said, I have ruled out MA's thus far but I'm rapidly thinking that some type of terminal MA or MS program might be the only way to go at this juncture. I haven't seen any MA's that offer funding in the US; at least not in the social sciences. So far all the programs that I've been filtered into after PhD rejections have offered utterly pathetic partial scholarships (1/3 or 1/2 tuition at best). I typically state in letters that my research focus is a blend of history and sociology (two topics big enough to encompass the bulk of my research). 

I'm sympathetic to your situation. Despite being the only undergraduate in the history of my department who has ever had a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal and having a stuffed CV four pages longer than any other candidate who has applied in the past three years; I have seen virtually every other student I have worked with go on to decently funded PhD programs. Whatever constitutes "fit" may well be tied into the fact that I am simply not as hyper-specialized as those other students. That just baffles me. How can being well-read across the board and capable of researching a variety of disparate topics be a hindrance to one's academic career? That concept even sounded insane to me as I read this out-loud to myself.

I'd be more specific in your statements, if I were you. A "blend of history and sociology" sounds a bit vague and general. One successful technique that I've seen people use is to use one of your research projects as a starting point and introduce your preparation in your studies by describing your driving question, approaches, angles, discoveries, theoretical perspectives drawn upon, arguments (use a bit of jargon if needed), and how that's led you to find what you want to do for your graduate career. It will give the sense that you're more specialized without digging yourself into a corner, if that makes sense.

As I said, being well-read across the board is not a hindrance to your academic career. People do value diverse interests and the ability to think outside the box. I don't think the hindrance comes from multidisciplinarity alone. Basically, I like to think of it as a wheel. The ideal PhD candidate has a fully functional wheel, with both spokes and a hub. The spokes represent the diversity of your interests and pursuits. The hub represents your focus. The spokes lend strength to the overall wheel, but they need the hub to function.

Edited March 28, 2017 by ThousandsHardships

[yash13177]

Hi GL551,

To me there are four things that stick out: your GPA, your Letters of Rec, your Statement of Purpose and your undergraduate career.

GPA: I think a lower GPA is fine when you apply to graduate school; however, it is the best if your worst grades are earlier in your undergraduate career. If the situation is reverse (which I believe is your case, you mentioned you got F's in your junior year) that is a red flag. They will question whether you can succeed long-term and also wonder why you got F's. Was it because you got lazy? You couldn't handle upper division classes? Or perhaps you focused your time elsewhere? Those may be the questions running through their minds so I would address that in your application.

Letters of Recommendation: Because you seem to have a lot of experience (research, teaching, extra curriculars) I can only think of this. Since you don't usually read your LOR's, you are trusting the professor's word when they say they can write you a good letter. If I may suggest, re-contact those professors and tell them your situation. Be very honest, respectful and ask for their opinion. Maybe you can get a feel for whether they actually wrote you a good letter! If not, look elsewhere. 

Statement of Purpose: Even though it has been through many rounds of revision, there is always room for improvement. Since you have been through two rounds of applications, I would re-examine your SOP. Have other people read it! Other professors, other friends, even your peers. Maybe think critically about what is coming across from your SOP and whether that represents you as an applicant.

Time during Undergrad: I agree with fuzzylogician about the cohesiveness of your application. For me, I am not as worried about the 3 B.S. degrees. What is a red flag to me is spending 7 years during your undergrad. Coupled with your degrees, classes, presentations, and publications all in different areas - that may be a worry to graduate programs. The whole point of a graduate program is to focus on one topic. Your application, from a bird's eye view, doesn't demonstrate your ability to focus on one area. How do you solve this? I would suggest looking at a Master's program or re-vamping your application. What I think you should do is demonstrate through your application the reasons why you wanted to be so well-rounded, how that would benefit their program, and how you would succeed in a Ph.D. program given these reasons. I think it will be difficult to do, but not impossible. You have to craft your application in a careful way: that both acknowledges your education/experience but spins it in a Ph.D.-program-positive way.

I hope my opinion helps! I am from neuroscience, so I apologize if any of what I said is different for your field!

Edited April 25, 2017 by yash13177