Loric

Could they have gotten that job without the PhD program though, and just the MA? If so, there was no reason to take up that slot, and no reason for all the extra stress and nonsense. When I'm talking about a "mistake" it's largely in terms of the grad school search, selection process, GRE, interviews, relocation, "poverty living" (often with food stamps, let's not forget that), and all the trouble.. for what? Something they could have accomplished without all of those problems. How is it not a mistake to buy into the idea of a program that you "HAVE" to do to advance your career when in reality there wasn't much reason for most of it? Just poke around the forums - how many people have even seriously considered not going to grad school for their careers? Most haven't. They didn't even consider an alternate route or anything. "PhD or bust!" is the mentality.

Just be careful, after a certain number of days, semesters, etc.. NS can automatically become F's if you don't petition for a retroactive withdrawal at some schools. I got slammed with that Never attend a class or do any work and somehow get an F? Gee, thanks academia.. I'm sorry, I was used to things auto-dropping if you don't attend. It never occurred to me to drop a class for a semester AFTER I withdrew. After much back and forth I'm stuck with the bad grades as what they are, but my applicant adviser knows about it and i've explained everything the best I can, so, it is what it is.

Grad programs are very much businesses.

You realize the cost of tuition far outweighs the cost educating students, right?

No, they'll read the long ones and go "ugh.. why did that girl start her SOP with 'ever since I was a child.." and then also say 'when I first read... in my aunt's library..' followed by 'it was at that point in high school I realized my deep passion for..'.. gah! it's a trifecta of suck!" Then they'll see your paper and be quite appreciative.

That's just it - i think it's quite the opposite. There is not a lack of qualified applicants.. it's that many of those "qualified" applicants will jump ship at the first opportunity they see. It's a basic characteristic of the "climber" mentality. They see something better, they'll go for it. In organizations that have well developed internal culture and promote loyalty you commonly wont find the climbers - they dont get hired. The companies will choose "less attractive" candidates than the climbers - who by their own volition have the better score and better pedigree - because those people will choose loyalty over the status, pay raise, etc.. You can spot a climber. For whatever reason, graduate programs aim for them instead of avoiding them.

Say what you need to say. Make sure you've well addressed the points and it flows coherently. If you have words left over, so be it. Restraint in these situations will be appreciated.

There is the cost of a rolling program but every time you replace someone before the end of the program you're increasing the cost.

Replacing a worker costs 30-50% of the annual salary of entry-level employees, 150% of middle level employees, and up to 400% for specialized, high level employees

Don't think already not accept hundreds of people who would likely do stellar? If 1/3 of the pool is quitters and there's more than 2x as many applicants as positions, you're already coming out ahead in any attempt to weed out the quitters (if at all successful). 3 slots. 2x as many applicants means 6 applicants.. 1/3 quitters.. you have 4 people who would stay on and finish. You have 3 slots, so if you weed out the 2 quitters you can have 3 slots who don't quit from the 4 applicants.

And a note: SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, estimated that it costs $3,500.00 to replace one $8.00 per hour employee when all costs — recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training, reduced productivity, et cetera, were considered. SHRM’s estimate was the lowest of 17 nationally respected companies who calculate this cost.

But again, hiring someone new costs a ton of money in and of itself. If you can retain a current employee - or better yet, dont hire a quitter - you save copious amounts of money. It is not a simple swap. You lose someone, you lose money. It is not free to replace someone.

And specifically.. why should graduate programs take in people who are unwilling to wait and finish their degree before entering the job market? Those types seem like they'd be the first target to eliminate from the applicant pool. Companies go out of their way to avoid hiring people who are going to quit. On boarding is one of the most expensive things related to filling job positions. Presumably procuring and vetting new graduates is just as costly for an institution. Wouldn't getting rid of the "will quits" lower the costs across the board for everyone?

But think there's no common ground between those who quit..? Nothing that could be found and used as an indicator? No precursor traits? So i'm to believe that dropping out of a grad program is a spontaneous and uncontrollable/unavoidable event?

Are they really the top applicants if 1/3 are not finishing? Wouldn't the top applicants nearly all finish? Go ask the philosophy forum, they're convinced that admissions is a lottery.

Dear lord.. get told for... how many pages..? I lost cont.. but... THE WRITING SAMPLE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING Then someone comes along and sucks at writing and it's a bad thing to be like "Hey, you, write better."

Money doesnt just come out of nowhere though. If someone who has a 1 in 3 chance of dropping out is funded, that money is not given to someone else. It's a lot of wasted funding.

And just because you brought it up. Since when is confidence something to be so ashamed of? What are you? British? (It's a joke, you wont get it, but the British find American pride and personal pride as a conceptual whole to be distasteful.) "oh no! the confidence! anything but the confidence!" Hand wringing nonsense. Really, if these are the rules for decorum around these parts they're counterproductive and absurd. If you want to learn, fine. If you want to debate - have at it. If you want other people not to mention something "confidently" which goes against your own preconceived notions (which have no bearing in fact) then I'll have none of it. What, is the idea that you may need to rethink your stance on something going to shake your walls to the very foundation? Are you so fragile? Man up.

I don't think all great literary masters think anything.. I do think (god forbid, I've had an independent unapproved thought on this forum) that writing is an art form of its own that requires certain learned skills and practice. The basics of which are being ignored and justified by saying "it's different." No, the construction of words into sentences that can be understood by others to effectively convey a point is not something that is different because it's philosophy. The terminology may be different but the same basic rules remain. Go outside with your philosophy in hand and try to defy the laws of gravity if you really think things can be so divorced. They're not. It's basic English and people are trying to justify adding more dreck into the lexicon, and worse, lamenting about the time and agony it takes to do so while shunning all logic which compels them to consider writing as a learned skill (one which most people do not possess with proficiency). So no, let's instead kowtow to a viewpoint that doesn't extend any further than the ends of their own noses. Keep swaddling the babe on toxic thought and see how much of a fully formed and informed person that brings about. A great experiment! Problem is, it's already been done countless times before and we know the result. Too bad the papers don't appreciate peer reviewed confirmation of results, eh? They want new research. Maybe if we do it this time while standing toward the wind - there you can piss and tell me it's raining. Perhaps I'll believe it this time.

No, don't do it. If you're worried about ethics, there's almost no chance the people reading your SOP will know who these people are or take any action if they somehow figured it out. They wouldn't be compelled to do so. Just use the names you see fit and move on. Though as for your SOP I'm really curious as to justification for such a story? The word limits are strict and the space is very valuable. Is this worth it..?

I feel this might be pertinent to your interests:

For how much it costs in resources, money, and time - how is it not? Especially considering for every admit there is a denial.

And no one in my field/department would write a letter out of courtesy or just because someone had decent grades in their classes (as i mentioned, you can get good grades and still be asked not to continue - or rather, prevented as they wont release the required permits.)

I think in my field saying a student was in any top X% would seen as suspect.. It just doesn't jive. It seems like a complete fabrication to say something like that. Can it look good? Sure, but it rings very hollow. Edit: In my training, only the top students were allowed to finish. People talk all he time about quals, but in my field had a review at the end of every academic period and had to go before a committee and was judged on if i would be permitted to continue - regardless of my grades. If i "peaked" too soon, I was out. I saw this happen to others. The basic class of students for my year/period started with like 30 people in the design fields. By midway it was down to 15, and by the end I was the only scenic designer, there were 2 lighting designers, 3 costume designers, and all the technical people (stage management, technical driection, etc..) had all dropped or been cut.