If I reapply to grad school, will my application get shot down?
November 27, 2013 6:10 AM Subscribe
An academic mentor says I should wait a year and submit The Strongest Application Ever to guarantee my acceptance. I said if I get rejected this year, I'll spend a year developing more research experience and reapply next year - no problem! What do I have to lose, right? Everything, according to him: he says he's concerned that they automatically look unfavorably upon re-applicants. Is that true?
Is the re- application going to be to the same program from which you were rejected? If so your mentor has a point. There can be a sense that you're still the same person who has repackaged themselves in a better way. If the *only* reason they reject you is that you didn't have that year of research experience, then I suppose re-applying having gained the experience solves the problem. But search committees are made of human beings, who can have a generalized feeling about whether the applicant's a good fit or not. Reapplying heightens that risk.
posted by third rail at 6:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by third rail at 6:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
What kind if PhD? Sciences? Humanities? Social sciences?
posted by discopolo at 6:31 AM on November 27, 2013
posted by discopolo at 6:31 AM on November 27, 2013
For my program, it would depend on a few factors. We get hundreds of applications, so it's possible no one would even notice you applying two years in a row, especially if you applied to work with one of the very popular professors.
We deny a lot of good, qualified applicants just because there's not room in our program for all of them. Most denies aren't based on "are you kidding with this application?' but on "this applicant is good, but this other one is great and fits my lab much better."
We've had people reapply after seriously upping their game, which hasn't been bad for them. Get denied, spend the next year doing research and writing papers for submission, make personal contact with the profs you want to work with, see them at national meetings, visit the program for a few days. It could pay off.
(All advice based on a specific science PhD program.)
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:38 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
We deny a lot of good, qualified applicants just because there's not room in our program for all of them. Most denies aren't based on "are you kidding with this application?' but on "this applicant is good, but this other one is great and fits my lab much better."
We've had people reapply after seriously upping their game, which hasn't been bad for them. Get denied, spend the next year doing research and writing papers for submission, make personal contact with the profs you want to work with, see them at national meetings, visit the program for a few days. It could pay off.
(All advice based on a specific science PhD program.)
posted by Squeak Attack at 6:38 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
In the Humanities PhD Program I work for, a reapplication is absolutely not looked at unfavorably so long as it is re-worked. In fact, we encourage applicants who are rejected to meet with a member of our faculty to discuss ways of improving the application packet. The second application is read independently from the original result.
posted by Pineapplicious at 6:39 AM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Pineapplicious at 6:39 AM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Its rare that the same people serve on the adcom two years in a row.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 AM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 AM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
When I get a repeat phd applicant, I check to see whether they improved whatever was lacking in their first application. For example, I've had people who just didn't have high enough English comprehension skills the first time around, studied for a year, and then resubmitted with higher TOEFL scores.
That said, I don't recall admitting anyone we rejected the first time around. We didn't hold the first application against them; they just didn't meet the bar both times.
The only situation where we'd immediately reject a re-apply is if we admitted them the first time, they chose not to attend, and then re-applied. That shows a lack of focus and commitment. Don't do that.
Good luck!
posted by eisenkr at 6:40 AM on November 27, 2013
That said, I don't recall admitting anyone we rejected the first time around. We didn't hold the first application against them; they just didn't meet the bar both times.
The only situation where we'd immediately reject a re-apply is if we admitted them the first time, they chose not to attend, and then re-applied. That shows a lack of focus and commitment. Don't do that.
Good luck!
posted by eisenkr at 6:40 AM on November 27, 2013
Best answer: In some fields (vet medicine from what I've heard) reapplying is very very common. If your mentor is in your field, I would trust their opinion on the subject with respect to their department. It very unlikely that committees from different schools will talk to each other about lackluster candidates, though, so I would just hold some good candidates "in reserve" for next year.
However. If I had a mentee that I thought needed more academic maturity to be ready for grad school, I might encourage them to take another year to strengthen their application. It's worth giving some thought to that.
On the other-other hand, even the biggest superstar can find themselves with a rejection based on their research interest not fitting in with the department or funding that year. (I was rejected from my safety school and accepted with a scholarship to my reach.)
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:41 AM on November 27, 2013
However. If I had a mentee that I thought needed more academic maturity to be ready for grad school, I might encourage them to take another year to strengthen their application. It's worth giving some thought to that.
On the other-other hand, even the biggest superstar can find themselves with a rejection based on their research interest not fitting in with the department or funding that year. (I was rejected from my safety school and accepted with a scholarship to my reach.)
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:41 AM on November 27, 2013
Ask them! You have nothing to lose and you may learn what exactly it is that they didn't like about your application. It may be that you need an extra year of experience or commitment or something to get in. It could also be that you applied in an unlucky year when all 6 slots were filled with ringers who were definitely top contenders and so any other good applications just didn't get considered that particular year....or it may be that there is something out of your control and an extra year will make no difference to this particular committee....like they are actively recruiting people with a particular set of academic interests that just aren't yours.
For example:
I went to graduate school in biochemistry. There are fads in the research that affect who gets in. It could be that right now, genomics is hot, so if some smart and talented student interested in doing cell biology applies, they might not have a chance even if they look better in the application process than someone who really, really wants to pursue genetics research. They already have some cell biology students, but what they really need is bioinformatics students. That sort of thing.
posted by BearClaw6 at 6:56 AM on November 27, 2013
For example:
I went to graduate school in biochemistry. There are fads in the research that affect who gets in. It could be that right now, genomics is hot, so if some smart and talented student interested in doing cell biology applies, they might not have a chance even if they look better in the application process than someone who really, really wants to pursue genetics research. They already have some cell biology students, but what they really need is bioinformatics students. That sort of thing.
posted by BearClaw6 at 6:56 AM on November 27, 2013
I applied to my program four times! The first two were straight rejections the third was a wait list and the final was full admit with extra fellowship. They saw my progression and my changes ver time. After the wait list, I called and spoke to them about what I could do to improve and also visits in person to meet the people I had been chatting with.
Humanities phd.
Can't hurt.
posted by mrfuga0 at 9:36 AM on November 27, 2013
Humanities phd.
Can't hurt.
posted by mrfuga0 at 9:36 AM on November 27, 2013
In my former field (social sciences), somebody reapplying the next year with a stronger CV would be an indicator that they had continued work in the field and were still quite serious about going down this path. In short, it would look good. As opposed to re-applying the next year with the same thing you got rejected with the year before. And that year could make the difference between funding/no funding, which is a very big deal. But it all depends on the particular program and their respective gatekeepers.
However. If I had a mentee that I thought needed more academic maturity to be ready for grad school, I might encourage them to take another year to strengthen their application. It's worth giving some thought to that.
My thoughts were the same as tchemgrrl. I did my masters in the same department as my bachelor's and all my professors were very supportive of my application, so I got accepted first go with funding. If they hadn't been, I would have thought twice about the entire process.
posted by futureisunwritten at 10:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
However. If I had a mentee that I thought needed more academic maturity to be ready for grad school, I might encourage them to take another year to strengthen their application. It's worth giving some thought to that.
My thoughts were the same as tchemgrrl. I did my masters in the same department as my bachelor's and all my professors were very supportive of my application, so I got accepted first go with funding. If they hadn't been, I would have thought twice about the entire process.
posted by futureisunwritten at 10:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you don't get an interview the first time, it's hard for me to believe anyone would remember your application a year later, especially considering that admissions committee members change.
The one scenario I would think about is that you might be admitted this year only to a less competitive program and then you will be left with the decision of whether you should take it, or turn it down and try again for a more competitive program the next year. (And if you do that, you should expect that the program will remember and won't accept you again.) So if you think you might reapply, you should be sure to apply only to the programs that you would be happy to be in without a second thought.
All this said, you should give greater weight to the advice of your mentor, who knows the politics and mores of this field, than any internet stranger. I would seek a second opinion from someone else in your field.
posted by grouse at 11:20 AM on November 27, 2013
The one scenario I would think about is that you might be admitted this year only to a less competitive program and then you will be left with the decision of whether you should take it, or turn it down and try again for a more competitive program the next year. (And if you do that, you should expect that the program will remember and won't accept you again.) So if you think you might reapply, you should be sure to apply only to the programs that you would be happy to be in without a second thought.
All this said, you should give greater weight to the advice of your mentor, who knows the politics and mores of this field, than any internet stranger. I would seek a second opinion from someone else in your field.
posted by grouse at 11:20 AM on November 27, 2013
Best answer: Your mileage may vary with field, but here's my intuitions on how it works in philosophy, which may be like to how it works for other fields.
Short answer: no.
Competition is incredibly stiff, but a high percentage of students who re-apply for a second time around have a much better performance record on average than those who apply during their first time. There are a number of reasons for this:
(1) Those who sit and govern the admission committees can be cycled through if the whole department isn't fully involved in the whole thing.
(2) You just have better luck of the draw this time around. There are less applicants within your subfield specialty, they want someone in your subfield speciality, and so on.
(3) Or, again, with how competitive it is, this time you are rank 5 out of 300 on the list instead of last year when you were 10 out of 300. There are 6 funded slots. Your application isn't different. You can even imagine that no one else's application is different, and the adcoms are the same. It's just a matter of luck. There's no strong differentiation between the top 5 and 15 applicants. They simply roll the dice of who will be the lucky 5 of the 15 that will get in.
(4) You also have a whole year off. A lot of applicants go home with their parents, or go traveling in Europe, or some other activity in which they can still work on their application. At least in philosophy, it's all about your writing sample. It's taken for granted your grades, GRE's, and letters are all top notch. So what happens is that students spend a year just working on their writing sample, and this contributes a great deal to their success second time around.
I don't even think re-applying without much changes is necessarily seen as bad, if your writing sample is objectively that good. I've seen people have successful second times around when they didn't alter much of their application, but instead just spent a year in service doing something.
posted by SollosQ at 11:58 AM on November 27, 2013
Short answer: no.
Competition is incredibly stiff, but a high percentage of students who re-apply for a second time around have a much better performance record on average than those who apply during their first time. There are a number of reasons for this:
(1) Those who sit and govern the admission committees can be cycled through if the whole department isn't fully involved in the whole thing.
(2) You just have better luck of the draw this time around. There are less applicants within your subfield specialty, they want someone in your subfield speciality, and so on.
(3) Or, again, with how competitive it is, this time you are rank 5 out of 300 on the list instead of last year when you were 10 out of 300. There are 6 funded slots. Your application isn't different. You can even imagine that no one else's application is different, and the adcoms are the same. It's just a matter of luck. There's no strong differentiation between the top 5 and 15 applicants. They simply roll the dice of who will be the lucky 5 of the 15 that will get in.
(4) You also have a whole year off. A lot of applicants go home with their parents, or go traveling in Europe, or some other activity in which they can still work on their application. At least in philosophy, it's all about your writing sample. It's taken for granted your grades, GRE's, and letters are all top notch. So what happens is that students spend a year just working on their writing sample, and this contributes a great deal to their success second time around.
I don't even think re-applying without much changes is necessarily seen as bad, if your writing sample is objectively that good. I've seen people have successful second times around when they didn't alter much of their application, but instead just spent a year in service doing something.
posted by SollosQ at 11:58 AM on November 27, 2013
Its rare that the same people serve on the adcom two years in a row.
posted by MisantropicPainforest
Not in my (hybrid humanities/social science) field. Programs are small and due diligence means each member of our faculty reviews all the serious applications each year. Our over-arching departmental committee tends to be the same senior crew every single year, with slow rotation and occasional substitutions because someone is on leave. And the DGS (me, for 11 of the last 17 years!) chairs the admission committee every year. No way we would not notice a reapplication *even if that wasn't a specific question on every standard phd program application!* ("Have you ever applied to this university before, and if so in what year and to what program?")
We have admitted students who reapplied after significantly upping their game in the intervening year or two. Happens all the time.
posted by spitbull at 4:16 AM on April 3, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest
Not in my (hybrid humanities/social science) field. Programs are small and due diligence means each member of our faculty reviews all the serious applications each year. Our over-arching departmental committee tends to be the same senior crew every single year, with slow rotation and occasional substitutions because someone is on leave. And the DGS (me, for 11 of the last 17 years!) chairs the admission committee every year. No way we would not notice a reapplication *even if that wasn't a specific question on every standard phd program application!* ("Have you ever applied to this university before, and if so in what year and to what program?")
We have admitted students who reapplied after significantly upping their game in the intervening year or two. Happens all the time.
posted by spitbull at 4:16 AM on April 3, 2014
Also, in the humanities fields, the single best use of your intervening year (other than reading your ass off, and improving your writing sample, as SollosQ says) is to learn a new language in a serious way, like, to oral fluency (or seriously improve your existing foreign language skills). My field tends toward international research and scholarly dialogue, and academia is a multinational polyglot world. Learning a (relevant) language to oral fluency is both a vital skill and a sign of self-motivation and discipline. I always tell people the most important part of the application for most of our admits is saying "I have lived for at least a year in the country/countries where I want to do doctoral research and can handle myself fine in Nepali (or Wolof or whatever)." Or you speak (these days) either Cantonese or Mandarin (future rainmaker flag, we are all becoming dependent on Chinese money now in the R1 world).
Also, if your first app was right out of college, be aware that humanities and social science programs (as opposed to STEM programs) increasingly just don't even seriously consider applicants who have never been outside the school context. The second most important thing you can do if you're 22-23 is get a real job, for me very much including manual labor (I'll be more impressed!) or public service or possibly grant writing, and do it for a year. At least. Seriously.
This makes you seem much more grown up and ready to make the long term commitment that is the only path to (and the only basis for) success in the academic career.
posted by spitbull at 4:33 AM on April 3, 2014
Also, if your first app was right out of college, be aware that humanities and social science programs (as opposed to STEM programs) increasingly just don't even seriously consider applicants who have never been outside the school context. The second most important thing you can do if you're 22-23 is get a real job, for me very much including manual labor (I'll be more impressed!) or public service or possibly grant writing, and do it for a year. At least. Seriously.
This makes you seem much more grown up and ready to make the long term commitment that is the only path to (and the only basis for) success in the academic career.
posted by spitbull at 4:33 AM on April 3, 2014
One last tip for upping your game these days, sorry for the multiple comments:
Technology. Learn it. Master it. Do a master's degree in information science or library science. Know how to do things your future senior colleagues don't know how to do fluently. Learn to program or bury yourself for a year in digital humanities literature and discourse. I actively recruit students with superior tech skills to the average humanities applicant (frankly, the average is shockingly bad, I guess reflecting a sorting bias for folks who would pursue a humanities phd in the first place). If you are otherwise in the competitive top 10% and you can code in PHP or know your way around MySQL or digital media creation, you move right up my list.
posted by spitbull at 4:46 AM on April 3, 2014
Technology. Learn it. Master it. Do a master's degree in information science or library science. Know how to do things your future senior colleagues don't know how to do fluently. Learn to program or bury yourself for a year in digital humanities literature and discourse. I actively recruit students with superior tech skills to the average humanities applicant (frankly, the average is shockingly bad, I guess reflecting a sorting bias for folks who would pursue a humanities phd in the first place). If you are otherwise in the competitive top 10% and you can code in PHP or know your way around MySQL or digital media creation, you move right up my list.
posted by spitbull at 4:46 AM on April 3, 2014
« Older The Overhead Oven Hood Is A LIE. How Do I Install... | What cool stuff can I do with 30 Pez dispensers? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by k8lin at 6:11 AM on November 27, 2013