2017-2018 Application Cycle

[WHC_2017]

13 hours ago, toad1 said:

That's for OSU I thought

I did my UCSD interview yesterday. They said they are interviewing a couple of people now, and the results shall be announced within 3-4 days. 

[toad1]

3 hours ago, WHC_2017 said:

I did my UCSD interview yesterday. They said they are interviewing a couple of people now, and the results shall be announced within 3-4 days. 

I am surprised so many schools are doing interviews... not what I was expecting. Do you think they are interviewing everyone they plan to accept?

Edited January 27, 2018 by toad1

[ArcierePrudente]

10 hours ago, bigdummy said:

A question for all the theory people who seem to be sitting on this thread tonight: How specific did you guys get about your proposed research in the SoP?

Congratulations to all those accepted to Northwestern today! I'm still sweating out the fear of getting totally rejected this cycle, so even if it's not your #1 it's a real accomplishment you should be proud of (it's definitely an awesome place for those seeking a more 'continental' pov).

In terms of specificity, I began by listing my research interests very broadly and conceptually, and from there listed a few discrete but related projects that I would be interested in pursuing vis-à-vis those interests. I explained how my prior work would support these projects (or how it had influenced them), and described what my research methods might entail going forward (and with whom, etc).

 

If ever I felt I was getting too specific or definite in terms of desired projects, I changed phrases like 'I plan to explore' with 'I am interested in exploring,' or 'I will demonstrate' with 'I might discuss'. Of course you don't want to get too equivocal either, but my SoP reeeeally wasn't running that risk. 

[ArcierePrudente]

9 hours ago, CandyCanes said:

What are your thoughts on the writing sample? For me, I was taking an excerpt of my thesis, so it felt hard to condense the entire argument into twenty pages. Is it just to show that you're able to write coherently and make original arguments, or did they actually want a complete product?

Usually the writing sample is meant to showcase your highest-quality academic work. It should be complete in that the sample should contain its own coherent, original argument(s), but if those arguments are smaller excerpts from a larger piece, that's perfectly acceptable. I think almost everyone I know, myself included, used excerpts from their thesis as a writing sample. 

[CandyCanes]

4 hours ago, BobBobBob said:

I agree with you that a letter from a Professor that knows you well is especially beneficial. But what I mean by "well-known" is that AO recognize your recommenders have published works in related fields. I still think a strong letter from someone like AL from Berkeley or MKM from GWU is better than a stellar letter from someone AO don't know. They are by no means "famous", but I do think their letters carry more weight as AO know these people can attest to your likelihood of success in their fields of work.

 Just curious, is English considered a related field? (I chose to only get rec letters from people within political science.)

[WHC_2017]

2 hours ago, toad1 said:

I am surprised so many schools are doing interviews... not what I was expecting. Do you think they are interviewing everyone they plan to accept?

From what I was told,  I think UCSD doesn't interview everyone. 

[deutsch1997bw]

If there's one thing I've learned having now received two rejections, it is that the entire admissions process is quite random, to a certain extent. I have a high GPA, quantitative research experience, LORs from two fairly well-known professors in their subfields (CP and AP/methods), conference presentations, etc. My quant GRE is quite low, but my verbal score is in the 91st percentile. I received a 6.0 on the AWA section. I am fairly certain the quant score is to blame for the rejection. But then again, something in my application helped me to make the "long short list" (the list the admissions committee told me that I was on).

I expected a rejection from Emory, and I got one yesterday. I was somewhat surprised that I was rejected from Wisconsin, though. I interviewed with three professors there two weeks ago, and I thought it went very well. I still am waiting to hear back from eight places, so I remain optimistic. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by deutsch1997bw

[ArcierePrudente]

@deutsch1997bw, first of all, sorry about Wisconsin--that's always a bummer--but second, I agree that acceptances/rejections can be quite random, to the point where I wouldn't even blame your quant GRE. For a lot of institutions faculty 'fit' rules the day, but even then, I once heard about a very competitive student who was rejected from a program he expected would have taken him easily. When he subsequently bumped into his former POI at a conference, he asked what had gone wrong. The POI responded, "Arendt fatigue" (he'd submitted a writing sample on Arendt).

 

So really, among the most competitive pool of 'finalists', it's the littlest things that count against you.

[deutsch1997bw]

2 minutes ago, ArcierePrudente said:

@deutsch1997bw, first of all, sorry about Wisconsin--that's always a bummer--but second, I agree that acceptances/rejections can be quite random, to the point where I wouldn't even blame your quant GRE. For a lot of institutions faculty 'fit' rules the day, but even then, I once heard about a very competitive student who was rejected from a program he expected would have taken him easily. When he subsequently bumped into his former POI at a conference, he asked what had gone wrong. The POI responded, "Arendt fatigue" (he'd submitted a writing sample on Arendt).

 

So really, among the most competitive pool of 'finalists', it's the littlest things that count against you.

I agree with you completely. Plus, I noticed on the results page that people with near-perfect quant scores were rejected, too. I have a couple of theories about Wisconsin's program. First, it is well-known that the university budget is tight. One of my advisers actually told me before my interview that I could be rejected solely because there is a lack of funds. Second, and related to your last point, my research interests, although in the same region and theoretical area of several scholars there, might have not been what they were looking for. My adviser warned me of this, as well.

[guest56436]

12 minutes ago, deutsch1997bw said:

If there's one thing I've learned having now received two rejections, it is that the entire admissions process is quite random, to a certain extent. I have a high GPA, quantitative research experience, LORs from two fairly well-known professors in their subfields (CP and AP/methods), conference presentations, etc. My quant GRE is quite low, but my verbal score is in the 91st percentile. I received a 6.0 on the AWA section. I am fairly certain the quant score is to blame for the rejection. But then again, something in my application helped me to make the "long short list" (the list the admissions committee told me that I was on).

I expected a rejection from Emory, and I got one yesterday. I was somewhat surprised that I was rejected from Wisconsin, though. I interviewed with three professors there two weeks ago, and I thought it went very well. I still am waiting to hear back from eight places, so I remain optimistic. 

I'm sorry to hear you didn't get into Wisconsin, as that was a good fit for you.

What a lot of applicants don't realize is that these programs (especially top 20 and up) are so competitive, you really have to be strong across all facets of your application to get in. There can be weaknesses, but there certainly cannot be weaknesses across multiple application materials. Because every single cycle there are 20-30 applicants that essentially have rock solid applications in all categories. Then it comes down to a numbers game (some schools may only admit one Russian comparativist for example, and someone might be better than you and take that spot).

We also have a tendency to think that weak GRE scores or GPA is the reason our application got sunk and reluctant to criticize more personal things, like our writing samples and SOPs. But people get in with average/weak GRE scores get into programs (even top ones) all the time; I know this is true because I got into 3 top 20 programs on the back of a pretty average quant score (something around 75th percentile). 

My personal anecdote. I had a good application but I had three weaknesses: my UGPA wasn't great, my GRE wasn't great, and my writing sample wasn't as good as it could have been. There were two other Latin Americanist applicants that did extremely well (think both of them got into combined every single top 10 place, and almost no rejections). By all accounts, both of them had nearly perfect applications. How was I supposed to compete with them when there were often 1-2 spaces MAX for LA comparativists? I couldn't. They took the spots. Was I perhaps in contention for one, or a couple, of those top 10 places? Sure, probably. But at the end of the day they have better applications than I did. 

We have to look at these things holistically, all facets of your application matter. Weaknesses can be overcome, but the margin of error is extremely small. We shouldn't be so quick to assume that our GRE or GPA sunk us, but also introspectively look at other components of our application (LORs, hard to do, but you can probably guess, SOP, writing samples, ect) that may also be weak compared to the top applicants. 

[deutsch1997bw]

9 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

I'm sorry to hear you didn't get into Wisconsin, as that was a good fit for you.

What a lot of applicants don't realize is that these programs (especially top 20 and up) are so competitive, you really have to be strong across all facets of your application to get in. There can be weaknesses, but there certainly cannot be weaknesses across multiple application materials. Because every single cycle there are 20-30 applicants that essentially have rock solid applications in all categories. Then it comes down to a numbers game (some schools may only admit one Russian comparativist for example, and someone might be better than you and take that spot).

We also have a tendency to think that weak GRE scores or GPA is the reason our application got sunk and reluctant to criticize more personal things, like our writing samples and SOPs. But people get in with average/weak GRE scores get into programs (even top ones) all the time; I know this is true because I got into 3 top 20 programs on the back of a pretty average quant score (something around 75th percentile). 

My personal anecdote. I had a good application but I had three weaknesses: my UGPA wasn't great, my GRE wasn't great, and my writing sample wasn't as good as it could have been. There were two other Latin Americanist applicants that did extremely well (think both of them got into combined every single top 10 place, and almost no rejections). By all accounts, both of them had nearly perfect applications. How was I supposed to compete with them when there were often 1-2 spaces MAX for LA comparativists? I couldn't. They took the spots. Was I perhaps in contention for one, or a couple, of those top 10 places? Sure, probably. But at the end of the day they have better applications than I did. 

We have to look at these things holistically, all facets of your application matter. Weaknesses can be overcome, but the margin of error is extremely small. We shouldn't be so quick to assume that our GRE or GPA sunk us, but also introspectively look at other components of our application (LORs, hard to do, but you can probably guess, SOP, writing samples, ect) that may also be weak compared to the top applicants. 

Thanks for this, @Comparativist. This makes me feel a lot better, and I agree with you completely. I still have other top 20 programs to hear back from, in addition to some top 30 ones, so I remain hopeful. 

[guest56436]

14 minutes ago, deutsch1997bw said:

Thanks for this, @Comparativist. This makes me feel a lot better, and I agree with you completely. I still have other top 20 programs to hear back from, in addition to some top 30 ones, so I remain hopeful. 

Remain hopeful. 2/10 doesn't necessarily set a trend (it could, but it might not too). You only need one good acceptance. Rejections suck; besides an early acceptance to a program I didn't really want to attend I got something like 8 rejections in a row. It's early. 

And this goes for everyone, it's not over until it's over. A few years back there was an applicant that got rejected over and over and over again. Then he got admitted to one program at the end of the cycle - and it was Harvard. Granted, this is highly unusual. But it speaks to the possible hope that everyone should have. 

And if it does go miserably, there is always next year. We are all capable of dusting each other off, getting up, and trying again (and coming back with an even better application).

Edited January 27, 2018 by Comparativist

[toad1]

 

1 hour ago, Comparativist said:

Remain hopeful. 2/10 doesn't necessarily set a trend (it could, but it might not too). You only need one good acceptance. Rejections suck; besides an early acceptance to a program I didn't really want to attend I got something like 8 rejections in a row. It's early. 

And this goes for everyone, it's not over until it's over. A few years back there was an applicant that got rejected over and over and over again. Then he got admitted to one program at the end of the cycle - and it was Harvard. Granted, this is highly unusual. But it speaks to the possible hope that everyone should have. 

And if it does go miserably, there is always next year. We are all capable of dusting each other off, getting up, and trying again (and coming back with an even better application).

Is this a real story about the Harvard acceptance lol? Wonder if the application was so strong that that’s why they were rejected at other programs—knowing the person would pick a stronger program.

[JMCrawfordNJ]

Something I noticed yesterday, the Northwestern people that were admitted, one was international and the other two after submitted dates as admitted and informed on the 27th when it was still like 9pm EST on the 26th. So maybe Northwestern reached out to international students first? Seems surprising that out of the 4 that posted admit, 3 of them seem likely international, if not all 4. Just thinking out loud. Why else would somebody select a day in advance of the date?

[deutsch1997bw]

10 minutes ago, JMCrawfordNJ said:

Something I noticed yesterday, the Northwestern people that were admitted, one was international and the other two after submitted dates as admitted and informed on the 27th when it was still like 9pm EST on the 26th. So maybe Northwestern reached out to international students first? Seems surprising that out of the 4 that posted admit, 3 of them seem likely international, if not all 4. Just thinking out loud. Why else would somebody select a day in advance of the date?

I thought the same thing.

[deutsch1997bw]

Anyone claiming the UNC theory admit?

[Hamb]

44 minutes ago, JMCrawfordNJ said:

Something I noticed yesterday, the Northwestern people that were admitted, one was international and the other two after submitted dates as admitted and informed on the 27th when it was still like 9pm EST on the 26th. So maybe Northwestern reached out to international students first? Seems surprising that out of the 4 that posted admit, 3 of them seem likely international, if not all 4. Just thinking out loud. Why else would somebody select a day in advance of the date?

Regarding the posted date, I think the system might use GMT regarding the date added. If the user just wasn't paying attention and didn't select the correct decision date that might explain it. I don't know for sure though.

[CambridgeHeismanLord]

I've been lurking for a bit but I decided to post my story to calm some of you down. I agree that the admissions guidelines can be a bit random at times, but there is a sort of chaotic logic to it. At the end of the day, there is a committee of multiple professors who decide your fate and it may very well be the case that none of them interviewed you or cared that you were interviewed. I managed to get into Harvard with a sub 3.5 GPA (undergrad, I had a 3.9 in my MA program), a 157 V, 161 Q GRE, and maybe two work experiences (albeit this was data analysis work in my home country). 

After entering, I even asked some of the professors as to why I got in, and they said they had chosen to read my writing sample as the topic it covered was fairly interesting. Off the whim of some professor who didn't have to read it but did anyways, I was able to get in. I'm not trying to brag or anything (indeed, I still feel like I don't belong here at times), but I wanted to let people know that rejections may come from the most unlikely sources but that may also mean acceptances likewise come from unexpected places as well. In that cycle, I got rejected from Boston College, Stanford, Washington, and Emory while getting into Harvard, Northwestern, and Toronto. Don't let this initial rejection let you down as there isn't a solid formula to this acceptance cycle, but you have to accept that there will be strong aspects that you want the committee to pay attention to that will completely be overlooked. 

Have hope, and I hope to see some of you guys soon!

Edited January 28, 2018 by CambridgeHeismanLord

[CandyCanes]

37 minutes ago, CambridgeHeismanLord said:

I've been lurking for a bit but I decided to post my story to calm some of you down. I agree that the admissions guidelines can be a bit random at times, but there is a sort of chaotic logic to it. At the end of the day, there is a committee of multiple professors who decide your fate and it may very well be the case that none of them interviewed you or cared that you were interviewed. I managed to get into Harvard with a sub 3.5 GPA (undergrad, I had a 3.9 in my MA program), a 157 V, 161 Q GRE, and maybe two work experiences (albeit this was data analysis work in my home country). 

After entering, I even asked some of the professors as to why I got in, and they said they had chosen to read my writing sample as the topic it covered was fairly interesting. Off the whim of some professor who didn't have to read it but did anyways, I was able to get in. I'm not trying to brag or anything (indeed, I still feel like I don't belong here at times), but I wanted to let people know that rejections may come from the most unlikely sources but that may also mean acceptances likewise come from unexpected places as well. In that cycle, I got rejected from Boston College, Stanford, Washington, and Emory while getting into Harvard, Northwestern, and Toronto. Don't let this initial rejection let you down as there isn't a solid formula to this acceptance cycle, but you have to accept that there will be strong aspects that you want the committee to pay attention to that will completely be overlooked. 

Have hope, and I hope to see some of you guys soon!

What range was your undergrad school in and what sort of major, if you don't mind me asking? 

[CambridgeHeismanLord]

34 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

What range was your undergrad school in and what sort of major, if you don't mind me asking? 

UC Berkeley, and I majored in Economics

[Sheldon2017]

Next week gonna be wild. Northwestern, Arizona, Arizona State, and probably Washington. 

[deutsch1997bw]

 

17 minutes ago, Sheldon2017 said:

Next week gonna be wild. Northwestern, Arizona, Arizona State, and probably Washington. 

Add Texas to the list, too!

[Albert01]

1 hour ago, deutsch1997bw said:

 

Add Texas to the list, too!

Plus UCSD maybe?

[buckinghamubadger]

I thought Arizona started sending some out already? No?

[Albert01]

26 minutes ago, buckinghamubadger said:

I thought Arizona started sending some out already? No?

Yes, they did although in unofficial form