Catria

OK, here's the conundrum: after the professor writing me one of the three LORs asked me, this morning, to send a reminder (because he wrote one for nine of the 11 schools I'm applying to, I know he actually wrote one) for two schools, specifically UChicago and Columbia. I returned to his office late afternoon, and, although he claimed he sent his LOR online, I am left wondering about processing times because it still shows that the online link is sent to recommender on October 16. Either these two schools have longer online processing times (I could expect, at most, 1-3 business days, but it still beats paper recommendations) or he didn't actually do it yet. I am not sure how long does it take depts to process LORs submitted online...

I can confirm that this practice, while uncommon, is not restricted to a particular discipline: I actually had to fill out one such form for WUSTL for a physics PhD application.

Do you think you're up to take the Chemistry GRE? Also, what chemical problems are you interested in?

For people in highly competitive subfields that apply to 10+ schools, the schools will often not provide you with enough space to answer "where else you are applying" completely. Tufts, for example, only have 3 slots to this end, Notre Dame has 4, so one has to strategize carefully in this case.

How troublesome would it be for an applicant if that applicant put together a list of schools whose school-wide prestige is undeniable (say, an application list filled primarily with schools whose school-wide prestige level is at WUSTL's level and higher) but, in terms of departments in that applicant's field, otherwise cover a range of realistic options? Assume that all these schools on that applicant's list actually do research in an area (within his/her field) specified by the applicant.

Do you think the users' credentials are a factor in what the users get out of it? (e.g. a 3.1 student with a V153/Q154 on the general GRE vs. a 3.7 student with a V162/Q167 on the general GRE and a 86%ile on a subject test)

Even if depts did communicate to each other regarding admissions, it often seems like an afterthought, something that is less of a priority vis-à-vis their research collaborations. And research collaborations are a channel through which such communications happen in the first place. I think it is more common with non-elite programs, but some programs may use this information in order to strategically admit students whose likelihood of matriculation is rather high. (Tufts commonly does this for undergrad)

The programs could care so that they can see whether you made your homework about choosing schools to apply to. It's perhaps a crude way to detect thoughtless students, but it's better than nothing.

After past readings about the GRE Search Service (might be a little dated), I always heard about how nonsensical the suggestions were: Tufts in plant biology, Berkeley MIDS, and so on, so forth. But I am one of the lucky few for whom the Service has had any use. Notre Dame apparently had some interest in me; at least it was sincere this time around after I looked for POIs there. Anyone else for whom the GRE Search Service has been of any use?

This supposes that you know beforehand which four schools you will apply without fail. Not everyone will know in advance that these four schools will fall in their acceptable range; in fact some people can cross a school off a list because of GRE scores.

I am facing a similar issue, albeit it has more to do with school-wide prestige rather than field-specific prestige: I seemingly made my choices, partially at least, with school-wide prestige in mind while, at the same time, striking a field-specific balance, thinking that, despite my best efforts, wishes and intentions, in the end, I could end up taking a job in a sector that is more sensitive to school-wide prestige than field-specific prestige, since it's far from a given that anyone, really, will still do research after a PhD and, with that logic, I would simply be hedging my employment bets, because I would still be employable. It just so happens that I have a balance of schools (because Tufts, Vanderbilt and Dartmouth all do early universe physics but are not considered top physics programs by any stretch) with the choices I made. I, too, am in a similar situation to the OP, academics-wise (3.67 undergrad, 3.84 in physics undergrad, 3.80 masters, 86%ile PGRE) with an article under preparation...

There is only space for one major GPA on some applications, while, in fact, I have two majors with significant overlap... that is quite troublesome to me.

In fact, bad grades early on are more likely to be overlooked than bad grades late in the game.

Try Duke...

Sometimes I have the impression that the poster that applies to so many depts at top schools really wants to get a job that requires a degree from a fancy school to obtain even if that job involves little to no research or otherwise seek a protection against poor research records once out on the job market... although I want to apply for a PhD in a different field sometimes I can't help but feel that the bottom part of my list has been built with school-wide prestige in mind. The previous post said that the admissions committees at each department at Johns Hopkins had little to no communication between them; auto-rejection due to applying to too many depts usually require inter-departmental communication.

In fields with writing samples, the writing sample carries a lot of weight, that's true. But how would you go around awarding fellowships across fields, if you were a graduate school trying to lure the best students you could? You're trying to compare apples and oranges: grading practices, as well as expectations of research experience, are uneven from a field to another, not all fields require a writing sample, and even among fields that require one, not all fields have the same conventions... that's where the GRE comes in for awarding financial aid.

When I prepared for the general GRE, I told myself that some university-wide fellowships (say, UGF at Vanderbilt or Centennial at Princeton) would use GRE scores as a criterion for award. But how much truth is there to this, if any? And do anyone have any idea how much do general GRE scores count in the process of awarding such fellowships? Perhaps I gave out erroneous information to some undergraduate who inquired about the use of GRE in saying that there were two uses of GRE scores by schools. First as a first cut: a soft cut, where one need an increasingly higher GPA (or better research experience) to compensate for ever-decreasing GRE scores, or a hard cut, where one is not considered until one reaches a certain threshold (and both types of GRE-based cuts exist). But I also told her that, if one makes it past that cut, they are also used to award financial aid, that is, university-wide fellowships. Also, please feel free to move this to the bank if it is appropriate to do so.

The only time where, in STEM, the AW subscore on the GRE could make a difference, is when financial aid is awarded partly on the basis of GRE scores, because, like you said, the EE depts you're interested in do not have any minimum AW score. However, can such aid be made available for masters in EE?

At my undergraduate department, many people would somehow place MIT (and sometimes Caltech and Stanford) as Ivies as well, while excluding UPenn for whatever reason... assuming they even know about UPenn. UPenn is one, but one has to be inclined towards either soft condensed matter or particle physics/cosmology to ever know about UPenn back at my physics dept. End result: I am the first from that department to ever apply at UPenn and Dartmouth (not sure about Columbia, knowing the other five had at least one applicant apiece from my dept, and matriculants at 3). As far as Dartmouth is concerned, it really is there only so that I can have a balanced list; how I conceived Dartmouth was that it was easy to turn down, despite its Ivy League status. Again, many at my undergrad would not even think of Dartmouth as even having a physics PhD program in the first place.

Beyond a certain number, there are diminishing returns in submitting additional applications... or so my advisor says. Even in particle cosmology, my advisor told me 10-12 would be about right and close to the point of diminishing returns. So I am applying to 11.

The main difference between early action and early decision is whether you're obligated to attend the school if admitted or not. Early action means that, while decisions are rendered in advance, like say, mid-December, you're not committed to the school in any way, if admitted. For this reason, you can write multiple applications under early action, unless one is applying to a school where you cannot write another early action application elsewhere, in which case it is known as single-choice early action. On the other hand, early decision obligates you to attend the school if admitted. The only possible release from the attendance obligation is if you demonstrate financial inability to cover the costs with the financial aid package presented.

What would you have used SCEA/ED on? (If you mean EA like in undergraduate admissions, then you could EA to more than one)

If you want to work in the South, then you may replace UPitt by Tulane (not Buffalo as previously suggested)... otherwise disregard my advice.

I would replace Buffalo with Tulane...

Some physics students say that UCSB is afflicted by the same problems with international applicants (this time there is no inclement weather to cancel flights at the same frequency as it is in the upper Midwest winter).