BFB

I would say that there's a clear disconnect between expectations and reality, and that that disconnect needs to be addressed somehow. But without knowing more about the specific case, I don't know how that should be done. I'd contact the DGSes at the relevant Ph.D. programs and ask what the AdComm saw as the main problem(s) with the file—but if you're asking for candid answers, I'd expect to receive them.

I feel confident that such enquiries have never made any difference at all in admissions outcomes, if that helps

2 & 3 were addressed above :-) As to 1, there's no guarantee that every member will read every page of every file, but most people read a lot. I'd be very surprised if anyone tossed a file based on GREs alone. We certainly ask for a depth of comments from our adcom members that makes that pretty much impossible. …? I don't understand the question. How do you know that you won't have been contacted prior to a decision if you haven't yet received a decision? And if you've received a decision, you should know whether you're in or out. What am I missing…?

It sounds like you're confident in 1-4 and are pretty convinced that 5. is holding you back. If that's the case, my advice would be to work on 5. … take a GRE prep course, read books on how to take the GRE, etc. I took the GRE when there was no Analytical Writing section; they called it Analytical Ability or something of the sort, and it was a lot like solving logic puzzles. When I registered for the GRE, on a whim I paid the extra $10 for the study guide that they offer. When I read it, I was shocked: it contained really good advice on how to take the test. For example, on the Analytical section, it said "The trick isn't answering these questions; most people can answer them given enough time. The trick is answering 30 of them in 30 minutes. Give yourself no more than 40-50 seconds per question, write down your best answer, and then reexamine the ones you weren't so sure about." That one piece of advice dramatically improved my score.

There's quite a bit, actually. I don't think US News publishes any measures of uncertainty, but the NRC, which also ranks graduate programs in political science, does. This illustration of an outdated set of rankings (data gathered 2006-07) from The Monkey Cage gives you some sense of how uncertain such estimates are. Upshot: In rankings with this much noise, an increase or decrease of a few positions is pretty meaningless. (And by implication, the fact that one school is a few positions above or below another is pretty meaningless, for the most part.) GWU is in red because, well, it's from The Monkey Cage. It's hard to disentangle the effects of reputation, quality, and training on placement. My sense, for what it's worth, is that most of the schools that most of you are applying to have letterheads that will get your file read. Beyond that, it's mostly a question of how well you've been trained, which in turn depends a whole lot on fit.

I can't imagine it being a big deal, really.

Sorry—that wasn't what I meant to imply, just that there should be an initial ranking that heavily weights the research and interests of the faculty at a given institution. I see a lot of statements along the lines of "Professors X and Y would be the perfect mentors for my proposed project on Z," and many of them fall flat because I know that X and Y don't really study Z. In those instances, I question the expected utility calculation.

Pretty much. Often after high-fives with the DGS.

Jim is the Graduate Coordinator; he should get back to you, but that's one of the busiest staff positions, and people are generally 9-5. The DGS in History is Robin Judd. http://history.osu.edu/directory/Judd18

"He"? Might want to make sure you emailed the right person….

I hope so :-) Thanks. Admissions almost all happen at the same time. If you're an international student, they need to confirm certain financial details (I'm not being coy, I really don't know which ones) before finalizing admission. Sometimes someone in Grad Admissions will spot something else (disciplinary action or ???) that raises a yellow flag and they have to investigate. But most admissions decisions should be in. If you're still "pending," I'd drop the DGS a line and ask what's up.

The Department of History works the same way, I'm sorry to say. They do have some waivers they can use. Regardless, though, best of luck with applications this year.

That would be letter GC1. I've learned quite a bit about our rejection letters this morning.

OK, so here's the situation (which might apply to other people as well). MattCC's file was technically incomplete. I'm not sure what was missing, but it wasn't anything crucial for the committee, so we considered what we had. We were very impressed, but we also didn't think his proposed area of study fit very well with the strengths of our faculty, so he didn't end up on the short list. That happens, and it really isn't a reflection on overall academic promise in any way. That's where things got weird. When a student's application is "incomplete" rather than "pending," the system won't allow us to send out a standard rejection letter. It forces us to include language about your file not having been considered (it was), and it gives us a choice between saying that the file was incomplete (true but irrelevant) or that the application was not competitive (technically true, but only at this program, and only for reasons of fit). The way things are set up, we're not allowed to send any other message. I've contacted the Interim Director of Graduate Admissions to request that this policy be changed in the future and that we be allowed to send letters that more accurately reflect our committee's assessment of a candidate. We'll see whether they're willing to do so. I apologize for not having discovered this situation sooner, and thanks very much for bringing it to my attention.

It's not the message I intended to send. I very much apologize for the needless stress and soul-searching. I'm pretty sure something got miscommunicated somewhere along the line, but regardless, I am happy to certify that you are 100% competitive. I'm still looking into this to figure out what happened and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Looking into this. Thanks for the heads-up.

Sorry. Should have known that dry sense of humor + text-based medium + DGS = terror. No offense taken at all, just couldn't pass up the opportunity for a good one-liner.

Well played.

No, you go.

Let me put it this way: I don't think a somewhat unconventional background like this helps or hurts your application, on average. What I suspect it does is raise the variance of the responses you'll get. Put simply, it adds a fair bit of noise to the signal that the committee expects to receive, but it's difficult to predict how they'll react.

I'd say a minimum of fit is often a necessary condition for admission. The rest can be over the moon and it won't matter if your interests don't match the faculty's. Reputation of school/program matters considerably less, I'd say. Mostly only helps in normalizing rec letters. And I'd drop GPA a couple of slots. As an aside: our Graduate School bases the number of waivers we need on undergraduate GPA. To them, graduate GPA is irrelevant. This creates some ridiculous situations (e.g., 2.9 undergrad GPA, worked in relevant field for 10 years, 4.0 grad GPA in Ivy League MA program, aaaand… still costs me a waiver). So undergrad GPA might be relevant in idiosyncratic cases. Yeah, a department's methods people have their own preferences w.r.t. programs, and they'll plan on re-training you. A working knowledge of R does indicate a degree of pain tolerance that's conducive to graduate study, though.

An aside, and FYI: I've checked, and the Graduate School doesn't say when it notifies admits of their status. It does, however, state that admits will be notified of their financial aid status on March 3.

Drop me a line and I'll be happy to confirm or deny. You shouldn't have to wait this long.

OK. Well, if I can clarify anything, don't hesitate. And sorry for the mixed message.

Why, thank you! Great way to start the weekend....