Is there such a thing as being overqualified for a program?

[To φ or not to φ]

Do some programs reject applicants out of the expectation that those applicants would not accept their offer anyway? 

Edited March 10, 2017 by To φ or not to φ

[Ikari Gendo]

Of course. Is it a reason to reject that person's application? Well, depends.

[Dialectica]

29 minutes ago, To φ or not to φ said:

Do some programs reject applicants out of the expectation that those applicants would not accept their offer anyway? 

I would think that if this happens, it's rare. Every program wants the best they can get. The admissions process is such a lottery that to preclude applicants just for being very qualified seems to be quite the gamble for a program. Further, a lot of applicants accept lower-ranked schools over higher ones on the basis of fit, so rejecting applicants in the way you describe, as mentioned before, would be assuming too much, and would, thus, be a gamble on their part. 

That's my take anyway. Given that programs have a vested interest in having very qualified people in their programs, and given that the process is a lottery, rejecting very qualified applicants on that basis seems antithetical to their aims. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Dialectica

[museum_geek]

What you're referring to is known as "yield protection," and though it definitely happens, I think it's something that's far more common in MD and JD admissions than in social science and humanities PhD admissions.

[Nichi]

I imagine if this were the case, "backup schools" wouldn't be advised as often/strongly. (And instead spending those application fees on more "appropriate" schools.)

[fuzzylogician]

Yes, it happens. If you're a department that's going to have a small cohort, do you want to "waste" your few acceptances on someone who is an obvious better fit with one or more higher ranked programs, or do you want to make offers to people who are a safer bet? You obviously wouldn't want to make an offer to someone who seems like they're clearly not good enough, but you also want to consider the likelihood that a person will actually come; if they likely won't, what's the point in spending your time (and money, flying them in for an open house visit or interview) trying to recruit them and reject or keep others waiting who are likelier to be a good investment? You have to know that while your wait on your risky bet, others will be accepting other offers. You probably also want to keep in mind that there is some measure of uncertainty in this process, it being holistic and based on collective impressions of various admissions committee members; fit is crucial and doesn't have to mean you pick the person who shines the most on paper. You want the person who will thrive at your department the most. So, yes, that calculation does happen. Does it mean that highly qualified candidates never get accepted to lower ranked schools? Obviously not. But there definitely are cases when that happens. 

[matchamatcha]

I'm now going to assume that all of my rejections were just because I was actually overqualified.  You hear that, mom, I'm overqualified for Stanford.

[hector549]

7 hours ago, To φ or not to φ said:

Do some programs reject applicants out of the expectation that those applicants would not accept their offer anyway? 

I have to say that in many fields it may be the case (or so I hear), but from what I've read and observed in philosophy graduate admissions, I doubt that it's something that much happens--at least in terms of the PGR top-50 ranked programs. I know the numerical ranking is for faculty quality, but small differences in the rankings probably don't mean that much in terms of actual difference in applicant quality, or at least the difference in, say, the top 25%ish of applicants across those 50 programs. There may be outlier candidates, those who stand head and shoulders above the rest, but I suspect that they're rare. The best candidates are close enough in terms of quality, that a candidate who's a good fit at, say, #15 and a good fit at a program ranked around, say, #30, will, I suspect, probably not have a dramatically different chance at both. At least that's my sense of it. Maybe there's more possibility for this effect if the difference in rank is greater. But I suspect it's not so pronounced in the top 50 philosophy programs. I do think that some higher ranked programs get more applications than do the lowest ranked programs, from what I've gleaned from department websites (I'm not sure, though, that this pattern is true across all the top 50 programs). But I suspect, once the the bottom 75% of applications are discarded, that the top applications for higher ranked programs are not significantly different enough from top applications at lower ranked programs for overqualification to have much of an effect.

[Duns Eith]

I have heard of cases where the adcoms simply didn't think they could recruit, presuming the applicant is far, far over qualified. Imagine if you're unranked, but you can bet they are likely to be accepted by a top 15 program. There's like nothing you can do to win that person over to your program.

[popsteady]

12 hours ago, matchamatcha said:

I'm now going to assume that all of my rejections were just because I was actually overqualified.  You hear that, mom, I'm overqualified for Stanford.

Yes, I totally agree. I just figured that was the reason for every rejection I received. Also, that I must be too interesting, too good-looking, and that my penmanship is too good (as I suspect the writers of my recommendation letters emphasized).