Jump to content

SleepyOldMan

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from pannpann in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To the contrary: It's not meant cynically at all. Let me explain.

    Let's look at what you've said: First, you said that you worked really hard on your WS, polishing and polishing, implying that you thought it was particuarly good, and at least suggesting that it was better than other applicants', and that it was on this basis, its goodness, its being superior, that you believe you were accepted.

    Second, you referenced the fact that professors you spoke with *mentioned* the SOP and WS when you spoke with them. Now, let me ask: Is this really the same as what you said first? Does it imply what you said first?

    The question is: Did they say, "Gee, the quality of your work was clearly *superior* to those of other applicants, and that's why we accepted you"?

    Or was it more along the lines of "We thought these things you wrote about (subject matter, methodology, etc) were really *interesting* and that's why we accepted you"? (The implication being, of course, that we found it interesting because the very same things are interesting *to us*.)

    I would suggest it's more likely to be more like the latter. Ie, we're willing to spend the next six years with you because you're interested in the same things we are. ---Which is exactly the tribal sort of consideration on which fraternity and sorority admissions decisions are based. Not without reason, I might add.

    So, it might well be more the subject matter and methodology you or anyone chooses to write about, rather than whether your WS would have graded out as a 93 or 95 or 97 or 99, that determined why you were accepted. ---Although, to be sure, if another candidate's subject matter and methodolog were nearly the same as yours, then the goodness of the essay would be more likely to factor into the decision,

    There is, of course, a very strong inclination for a successful applicant to think that he/she was chosen ahead of others because the school thought he/she was "better" than other applicants, perhaps smarter, perhaps a harder worker. This is the basis of the way in which we are normally graded in school. And, in fact, we saw this among posters who were the first to report acceptances: They all said: "I had a really strong SOP and WS."

    My point is that this is likely a delusion: At this level, the pool of applicants is just too strong; many many people have SOPs and WSs that, objectively (if that even means anything) are just as strong; and it strains credulity to suggest that an admissions committee would even be interested in spending its time trying to make fine gradations among a pool of exceptionally strong applicants to see which were the "very, very best" in some objective terms. They just have no interest in that. Rather, they first come up with a large group of potentially admissible candidates, and then ask the relevant faculty to pick which ones they would want to work with. And this usually means picking applicants whose work resonates most closely with their own.

    And this explains why people are accepted to some schools rather than others. The group of applicants to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley and Duke assuredly contains a good deal of overlap, and yet, for the very most part, it is not true that they admit the same students. How do we explain this difference? Since the applications people submit to each school are by and large the same, it can only be that each school is looking for different things.

    And, moreover, in a significant number of cases, what the schools tell successful applicants were the reasons for their acceptance, is different from what the applicants themselves thought it would be. ---See the "Perspectives on Success" thread, and also my recent question to mikers86 on the 2014 applicants thread. Which suggests that in many cases applicants are not particularly good at figuring out what adcoms are looking for.

    If one had the time, funds and inclination, I think the best way to gain admission to a particular graduate program would be to visit and talk with the students who are already there, and figure out what sorts of subject matters and methodologies they represent, and then incorporate these into one's own SOP and WS. Because it is likely that the next class they admit will resemble the recent classes in these respects.

    Coach? Or Dooney Burke?
  2. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from VLynn in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    Well, it is interesting how many successful applicants are surprised when they learn why they were accepted, and how this differs from their own estimation of why they "should" have been.  ---There's a tendency on the part of successful people in all walks of life to extrapolate from the way they view the causes of their own success and suggest that the same will work for others, but it rarely works out this way for others, and may not even be a very good explanation for why they themselves were successful.
     
    (Consider, for example, the case of google.  The founders are, of course, very successful people, and they viewed their success as primarily a function of how smart they are, i.e. smarter than just about everybody else.  Based on this self-analysis, they initially instructed their HR department to hire people just like them, to the extent possible:  People with high SAT scores, high IQ scores, high grades from brand name schools, etc.  Later, to their great surprise, they found out that this sort of person generally turned out not to be a particularly good employee, and they eventually they changed their hiring model to one based on more traditional predictors of employment success.  ---What this anecdote further suggests is that the reasons for the google founders' own success may also have been something other than their own sheer intelligence, though they may well not have come to this final conclusion quite yet.)
     
    Depending on what sorority one may be rushing, it may be advisable to invest in a Coach bag rather than a Dooney & Burke, and a little research will disclose this.  And I'm suggesting something similar may apply in the grad school application context.
  3. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from hashslinger in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To coin a phrase:  That is not what I meant at all!  That is not it at all!
     
    (Just kidding, of course, about the coinage.)
     
    The main point is this:  Grad schools are not interested in determining, from among several hundred applicants, which ones are the very absolute "most talented" or which ones have submitted the very "best" writing samples or SOPs.  They're not interested in determining whether an individual applicant would grade out at 98 or at 96 or at 94.  That's not a significant difference to them, and they have no interest in spending their limited time that way.
     
    Rather, I think the process works like this:  
     
    1.  They first make an initial cut of applicants, based on all the credentials they present and whatever general standards each department may have, into two categories:  "Are they admissible or not?"  Which means:  "Are they talented enough to do excellent work in our department?"  
     
    2.  The group of admissible applicants that results from that first cut is, I would guess, in every case, significantly larger than the number of spots a school may have available.  So, how do they proceed?  Do they apply a finer grained analysis and try to rank the admissible applicants in order?  Do they try to distinguish the applicant who is a 98.6 from the applicant who is a 98.4?  
     
    3.  I don't think so.  I believe the adcom instead then goes to the various subject matter and methodology specialists in the department and asks them to read SOPs and WSs of relevant applicants, and have the specialists decide whom they would most be interested in having as potential students.  Knowing that a six-year commitment is involved, it's likely that they're going to choose applicants whose interests closely align with their own.  Which makes all kinds of sense from any number of perspectives.  It's important that people in a department feel some sense of comfort and familiarity with those they're going to be spending time with.  
     
    So, yes, once the first cut is made, the focus is on "Whom do I/we want to work with?" rather than "Whom do we think are the very, very, very most talented students (in some "objective" sense) in the admissible pool?"  It just doesn't make sense for a department to admit someone, no matter how talented they might be, if their interests don't make a good match with the faculty.  (Though, it might be said, it's also human nature for a faculty member in a particular specialization to think A is more talented than B because A's views more closely agree with those of said faculty member.  ---If you don't think this happens in grad school, then you probably haven't been to grad school yet.)
     
    So, once you're in the admissible group, it's a question of how faculty members respond to your interests, as expressed in your writing.  Of course they want to know that you're an excellent writer, but presumably this is true of everyone in the admissible group.  My view is that the degree of polish applied to the SOP or WS matters quite a bit less than whether your writing sets off a spark of recognition in your readers.
     
    Which is why I believe that investing time in trying to understand what will cause that spark of recognition is likely to be the most productive thing one can do to achieve a greater percentage of acceptances.  You are not going to be accepted because your SOP or WS is especially "strong," because nearly everyone's is.  You're going to be accepted because, from among the large group of very strong applicants, something in what you say catches the eye and fancy of a decision-maker.  And if you can develop a clear idea of what is likely to matter most to Professors A and B at School C, and are able to tailor your writing in that direction, that will increase your chances of admissions success more than merely improving the quality of a non-tailored writing sample.  
     
    ---Of course, it's natural for someone with a fantastic record of prior academic achievement, someone whose grades were always at the very top, to think that how well they do in the admissions process will be a direct reflection of how "well" they write their SOP and WS, how "strong" they are.  Natural, yes, but IMO it's just not true.  It really does come down to fit, where "fit" means, from the perspective of a relevant faculty member in your potential field:  "Does this person's project interest me?"
     
    So, to conclude:  Jazzy:  I agree we're in agreement as to the main part of it.  I would say, though, that some people are probably more perceptive than others at figuring out in advance what might or might not be attractive to a particular department, and that's why people are often surprised at what departments say when they tell them why they were accepted.  The process can often appear as "whim," but once we get to know more about the people making the decisions, they usually end up making a lot of sense.
     
    I hope this is more clearly stated than in my previous post, and also that no one will feel there is anything patronizing about it.  It's my best attempt to make sense of the process, of what I have learned over the past months.  If you disagree, let's talk about it.
  4. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from lifealive in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To coin a phrase:  That is not what I meant at all!  That is not it at all!
     
    (Just kidding, of course, about the coinage.)
     
    The main point is this:  Grad schools are not interested in determining, from among several hundred applicants, which ones are the very absolute "most talented" or which ones have submitted the very "best" writing samples or SOPs.  They're not interested in determining whether an individual applicant would grade out at 98 or at 96 or at 94.  That's not a significant difference to them, and they have no interest in spending their limited time that way.
     
    Rather, I think the process works like this:  
     
    1.  They first make an initial cut of applicants, based on all the credentials they present and whatever general standards each department may have, into two categories:  "Are they admissible or not?"  Which means:  "Are they talented enough to do excellent work in our department?"  
     
    2.  The group of admissible applicants that results from that first cut is, I would guess, in every case, significantly larger than the number of spots a school may have available.  So, how do they proceed?  Do they apply a finer grained analysis and try to rank the admissible applicants in order?  Do they try to distinguish the applicant who is a 98.6 from the applicant who is a 98.4?  
     
    3.  I don't think so.  I believe the adcom instead then goes to the various subject matter and methodology specialists in the department and asks them to read SOPs and WSs of relevant applicants, and have the specialists decide whom they would most be interested in having as potential students.  Knowing that a six-year commitment is involved, it's likely that they're going to choose applicants whose interests closely align with their own.  Which makes all kinds of sense from any number of perspectives.  It's important that people in a department feel some sense of comfort and familiarity with those they're going to be spending time with.  
     
    So, yes, once the first cut is made, the focus is on "Whom do I/we want to work with?" rather than "Whom do we think are the very, very, very most talented students (in some "objective" sense) in the admissible pool?"  It just doesn't make sense for a department to admit someone, no matter how talented they might be, if their interests don't make a good match with the faculty.  (Though, it might be said, it's also human nature for a faculty member in a particular specialization to think A is more talented than B because A's views more closely agree with those of said faculty member.  ---If you don't think this happens in grad school, then you probably haven't been to grad school yet.)
     
    So, once you're in the admissible group, it's a question of how faculty members respond to your interests, as expressed in your writing.  Of course they want to know that you're an excellent writer, but presumably this is true of everyone in the admissible group.  My view is that the degree of polish applied to the SOP or WS matters quite a bit less than whether your writing sets off a spark of recognition in your readers.
     
    Which is why I believe that investing time in trying to understand what will cause that spark of recognition is likely to be the most productive thing one can do to achieve a greater percentage of acceptances.  You are not going to be accepted because your SOP or WS is especially "strong," because nearly everyone's is.  You're going to be accepted because, from among the large group of very strong applicants, something in what you say catches the eye and fancy of a decision-maker.  And if you can develop a clear idea of what is likely to matter most to Professors A and B at School C, and are able to tailor your writing in that direction, that will increase your chances of admissions success more than merely improving the quality of a non-tailored writing sample.  
     
    ---Of course, it's natural for someone with a fantastic record of prior academic achievement, someone whose grades were always at the very top, to think that how well they do in the admissions process will be a direct reflection of how "well" they write their SOP and WS, how "strong" they are.  Natural, yes, but IMO it's just not true.  It really does come down to fit, where "fit" means, from the perspective of a relevant faculty member in your potential field:  "Does this person's project interest me?"
     
    So, to conclude:  Jazzy:  I agree we're in agreement as to the main part of it.  I would say, though, that some people are probably more perceptive than others at figuring out in advance what might or might not be attractive to a particular department, and that's why people are often surprised at what departments say when they tell them why they were accepted.  The process can often appear as "whim," but once we get to know more about the people making the decisions, they usually end up making a lot of sense.
     
    I hope this is more clearly stated than in my previous post, and also that no one will feel there is anything patronizing about it.  It's my best attempt to make sense of the process, of what I have learned over the past months.  If you disagree, let's talk about it.
  5. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from lifealive in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To the contrary: It's not meant cynically at all. Let me explain.

    Let's look at what you've said: First, you said that you worked really hard on your WS, polishing and polishing, implying that you thought it was particuarly good, and at least suggesting that it was better than other applicants', and that it was on this basis, its goodness, its being superior, that you believe you were accepted.

    Second, you referenced the fact that professors you spoke with *mentioned* the SOP and WS when you spoke with them. Now, let me ask: Is this really the same as what you said first? Does it imply what you said first?

    The question is: Did they say, "Gee, the quality of your work was clearly *superior* to those of other applicants, and that's why we accepted you"?

    Or was it more along the lines of "We thought these things you wrote about (subject matter, methodology, etc) were really *interesting* and that's why we accepted you"? (The implication being, of course, that we found it interesting because the very same things are interesting *to us*.)

    I would suggest it's more likely to be more like the latter. Ie, we're willing to spend the next six years with you because you're interested in the same things we are. ---Which is exactly the tribal sort of consideration on which fraternity and sorority admissions decisions are based. Not without reason, I might add.

    So, it might well be more the subject matter and methodology you or anyone chooses to write about, rather than whether your WS would have graded out as a 93 or 95 or 97 or 99, that determined why you were accepted. ---Although, to be sure, if another candidate's subject matter and methodolog were nearly the same as yours, then the goodness of the essay would be more likely to factor into the decision,

    There is, of course, a very strong inclination for a successful applicant to think that he/she was chosen ahead of others because the school thought he/she was "better" than other applicants, perhaps smarter, perhaps a harder worker. This is the basis of the way in which we are normally graded in school. And, in fact, we saw this among posters who were the first to report acceptances: They all said: "I had a really strong SOP and WS."

    My point is that this is likely a delusion: At this level, the pool of applicants is just too strong; many many people have SOPs and WSs that, objectively (if that even means anything) are just as strong; and it strains credulity to suggest that an admissions committee would even be interested in spending its time trying to make fine gradations among a pool of exceptionally strong applicants to see which were the "very, very best" in some objective terms. They just have no interest in that. Rather, they first come up with a large group of potentially admissible candidates, and then ask the relevant faculty to pick which ones they would want to work with. And this usually means picking applicants whose work resonates most closely with their own.

    And this explains why people are accepted to some schools rather than others. The group of applicants to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley and Duke assuredly contains a good deal of overlap, and yet, for the very most part, it is not true that they admit the same students. How do we explain this difference? Since the applications people submit to each school are by and large the same, it can only be that each school is looking for different things.

    And, moreover, in a significant number of cases, what the schools tell successful applicants were the reasons for their acceptance, is different from what the applicants themselves thought it would be. ---See the "Perspectives on Success" thread, and also my recent question to mikers86 on the 2014 applicants thread. Which suggests that in many cases applicants are not particularly good at figuring out what adcoms are looking for.

    If one had the time, funds and inclination, I think the best way to gain admission to a particular graduate program would be to visit and talk with the students who are already there, and figure out what sorts of subject matters and methodologies they represent, and then incorporate these into one's own SOP and WS. Because it is likely that the next class they admit will resemble the recent classes in these respects.

    Coach? Or Dooney Burke?
  6. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from lifealive in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    Well, it is interesting how many successful applicants are surprised when they learn why they were accepted, and how this differs from their own estimation of why they "should" have been.  ---There's a tendency on the part of successful people in all walks of life to extrapolate from the way they view the causes of their own success and suggest that the same will work for others, but it rarely works out this way for others, and may not even be a very good explanation for why they themselves were successful.
     
    (Consider, for example, the case of google.  The founders are, of course, very successful people, and they viewed their success as primarily a function of how smart they are, i.e. smarter than just about everybody else.  Based on this self-analysis, they initially instructed their HR department to hire people just like them, to the extent possible:  People with high SAT scores, high IQ scores, high grades from brand name schools, etc.  Later, to their great surprise, they found out that this sort of person generally turned out not to be a particularly good employee, and they eventually they changed their hiring model to one based on more traditional predictors of employment success.  ---What this anecdote further suggests is that the reasons for the google founders' own success may also have been something other than their own sheer intelligence, though they may well not have come to this final conclusion quite yet.)
     
    Depending on what sorority one may be rushing, it may be advisable to invest in a Coach bag rather than a Dooney & Burke, and a little research will disclose this.  And I'm suggesting something similar may apply in the grad school application context.
  7. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from InHacSpeVivo in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To coin a phrase:  That is not what I meant at all!  That is not it at all!
     
    (Just kidding, of course, about the coinage.)
     
    The main point is this:  Grad schools are not interested in determining, from among several hundred applicants, which ones are the very absolute "most talented" or which ones have submitted the very "best" writing samples or SOPs.  They're not interested in determining whether an individual applicant would grade out at 98 or at 96 or at 94.  That's not a significant difference to them, and they have no interest in spending their limited time that way.
     
    Rather, I think the process works like this:  
     
    1.  They first make an initial cut of applicants, based on all the credentials they present and whatever general standards each department may have, into two categories:  "Are they admissible or not?"  Which means:  "Are they talented enough to do excellent work in our department?"  
     
    2.  The group of admissible applicants that results from that first cut is, I would guess, in every case, significantly larger than the number of spots a school may have available.  So, how do they proceed?  Do they apply a finer grained analysis and try to rank the admissible applicants in order?  Do they try to distinguish the applicant who is a 98.6 from the applicant who is a 98.4?  
     
    3.  I don't think so.  I believe the adcom instead then goes to the various subject matter and methodology specialists in the department and asks them to read SOPs and WSs of relevant applicants, and have the specialists decide whom they would most be interested in having as potential students.  Knowing that a six-year commitment is involved, it's likely that they're going to choose applicants whose interests closely align with their own.  Which makes all kinds of sense from any number of perspectives.  It's important that people in a department feel some sense of comfort and familiarity with those they're going to be spending time with.  
     
    So, yes, once the first cut is made, the focus is on "Whom do I/we want to work with?" rather than "Whom do we think are the very, very, very most talented students (in some "objective" sense) in the admissible pool?"  It just doesn't make sense for a department to admit someone, no matter how talented they might be, if their interests don't make a good match with the faculty.  (Though, it might be said, it's also human nature for a faculty member in a particular specialization to think A is more talented than B because A's views more closely agree with those of said faculty member.  ---If you don't think this happens in grad school, then you probably haven't been to grad school yet.)
     
    So, once you're in the admissible group, it's a question of how faculty members respond to your interests, as expressed in your writing.  Of course they want to know that you're an excellent writer, but presumably this is true of everyone in the admissible group.  My view is that the degree of polish applied to the SOP or WS matters quite a bit less than whether your writing sets off a spark of recognition in your readers.
     
    Which is why I believe that investing time in trying to understand what will cause that spark of recognition is likely to be the most productive thing one can do to achieve a greater percentage of acceptances.  You are not going to be accepted because your SOP or WS is especially "strong," because nearly everyone's is.  You're going to be accepted because, from among the large group of very strong applicants, something in what you say catches the eye and fancy of a decision-maker.  And if you can develop a clear idea of what is likely to matter most to Professors A and B at School C, and are able to tailor your writing in that direction, that will increase your chances of admissions success more than merely improving the quality of a non-tailored writing sample.  
     
    ---Of course, it's natural for someone with a fantastic record of prior academic achievement, someone whose grades were always at the very top, to think that how well they do in the admissions process will be a direct reflection of how "well" they write their SOP and WS, how "strong" they are.  Natural, yes, but IMO it's just not true.  It really does come down to fit, where "fit" means, from the perspective of a relevant faculty member in your potential field:  "Does this person's project interest me?"
     
    So, to conclude:  Jazzy:  I agree we're in agreement as to the main part of it.  I would say, though, that some people are probably more perceptive than others at figuring out in advance what might or might not be attractive to a particular department, and that's why people are often surprised at what departments say when they tell them why they were accepted.  The process can often appear as "whim," but once we get to know more about the people making the decisions, they usually end up making a lot of sense.
     
    I hope this is more clearly stated than in my previous post, and also that no one will feel there is anything patronizing about it.  It's my best attempt to make sense of the process, of what I have learned over the past months.  If you disagree, let's talk about it.
  8. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from ryhmesandammo in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    Well, it is interesting how many successful applicants are surprised when they learn why they were accepted, and how this differs from their own estimation of why they "should" have been.  ---There's a tendency on the part of successful people in all walks of life to extrapolate from the way they view the causes of their own success and suggest that the same will work for others, but it rarely works out this way for others, and may not even be a very good explanation for why they themselves were successful.
     
    (Consider, for example, the case of google.  The founders are, of course, very successful people, and they viewed their success as primarily a function of how smart they are, i.e. smarter than just about everybody else.  Based on this self-analysis, they initially instructed their HR department to hire people just like them, to the extent possible:  People with high SAT scores, high IQ scores, high grades from brand name schools, etc.  Later, to their great surprise, they found out that this sort of person generally turned out not to be a particularly good employee, and they eventually they changed their hiring model to one based on more traditional predictors of employment success.  ---What this anecdote further suggests is that the reasons for the google founders' own success may also have been something other than their own sheer intelligence, though they may well not have come to this final conclusion quite yet.)
     
    Depending on what sorority one may be rushing, it may be advisable to invest in a Coach bag rather than a Dooney & Burke, and a little research will disclose this.  And I'm suggesting something similar may apply in the grad school application context.
  9. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from ExponentialDecay in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To the contrary: It's not meant cynically at all. Let me explain.

    Let's look at what you've said: First, you said that you worked really hard on your WS, polishing and polishing, implying that you thought it was particuarly good, and at least suggesting that it was better than other applicants', and that it was on this basis, its goodness, its being superior, that you believe you were accepted.

    Second, you referenced the fact that professors you spoke with *mentioned* the SOP and WS when you spoke with them. Now, let me ask: Is this really the same as what you said first? Does it imply what you said first?

    The question is: Did they say, "Gee, the quality of your work was clearly *superior* to those of other applicants, and that's why we accepted you"?

    Or was it more along the lines of "We thought these things you wrote about (subject matter, methodology, etc) were really *interesting* and that's why we accepted you"? (The implication being, of course, that we found it interesting because the very same things are interesting *to us*.)

    I would suggest it's more likely to be more like the latter. Ie, we're willing to spend the next six years with you because you're interested in the same things we are. ---Which is exactly the tribal sort of consideration on which fraternity and sorority admissions decisions are based. Not without reason, I might add.

    So, it might well be more the subject matter and methodology you or anyone chooses to write about, rather than whether your WS would have graded out as a 93 or 95 or 97 or 99, that determined why you were accepted. ---Although, to be sure, if another candidate's subject matter and methodolog were nearly the same as yours, then the goodness of the essay would be more likely to factor into the decision,

    There is, of course, a very strong inclination for a successful applicant to think that he/she was chosen ahead of others because the school thought he/she was "better" than other applicants, perhaps smarter, perhaps a harder worker. This is the basis of the way in which we are normally graded in school. And, in fact, we saw this among posters who were the first to report acceptances: They all said: "I had a really strong SOP and WS."

    My point is that this is likely a delusion: At this level, the pool of applicants is just too strong; many many people have SOPs and WSs that, objectively (if that even means anything) are just as strong; and it strains credulity to suggest that an admissions committee would even be interested in spending its time trying to make fine gradations among a pool of exceptionally strong applicants to see which were the "very, very best" in some objective terms. They just have no interest in that. Rather, they first come up with a large group of potentially admissible candidates, and then ask the relevant faculty to pick which ones they would want to work with. And this usually means picking applicants whose work resonates most closely with their own.

    And this explains why people are accepted to some schools rather than others. The group of applicants to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley and Duke assuredly contains a good deal of overlap, and yet, for the very most part, it is not true that they admit the same students. How do we explain this difference? Since the applications people submit to each school are by and large the same, it can only be that each school is looking for different things.

    And, moreover, in a significant number of cases, what the schools tell successful applicants were the reasons for their acceptance, is different from what the applicants themselves thought it would be. ---See the "Perspectives on Success" thread, and also my recent question to mikers86 on the 2014 applicants thread. Which suggests that in many cases applicants are not particularly good at figuring out what adcoms are looking for.

    If one had the time, funds and inclination, I think the best way to gain admission to a particular graduate program would be to visit and talk with the students who are already there, and figure out what sorts of subject matters and methodologies they represent, and then incorporate these into one's own SOP and WS. Because it is likely that the next class they admit will resemble the recent classes in these respects.

    Coach? Or Dooney Burke?
  10. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from graphgraphe in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To the contrary: It's not meant cynically at all. Let me explain.

    Let's look at what you've said: First, you said that you worked really hard on your WS, polishing and polishing, implying that you thought it was particuarly good, and at least suggesting that it was better than other applicants', and that it was on this basis, its goodness, its being superior, that you believe you were accepted.

    Second, you referenced the fact that professors you spoke with *mentioned* the SOP and WS when you spoke with them. Now, let me ask: Is this really the same as what you said first? Does it imply what you said first?

    The question is: Did they say, "Gee, the quality of your work was clearly *superior* to those of other applicants, and that's why we accepted you"?

    Or was it more along the lines of "We thought these things you wrote about (subject matter, methodology, etc) were really *interesting* and that's why we accepted you"? (The implication being, of course, that we found it interesting because the very same things are interesting *to us*.)

    I would suggest it's more likely to be more like the latter. Ie, we're willing to spend the next six years with you because you're interested in the same things we are. ---Which is exactly the tribal sort of consideration on which fraternity and sorority admissions decisions are based. Not without reason, I might add.

    So, it might well be more the subject matter and methodology you or anyone chooses to write about, rather than whether your WS would have graded out as a 93 or 95 or 97 or 99, that determined why you were accepted. ---Although, to be sure, if another candidate's subject matter and methodolog were nearly the same as yours, then the goodness of the essay would be more likely to factor into the decision,

    There is, of course, a very strong inclination for a successful applicant to think that he/she was chosen ahead of others because the school thought he/she was "better" than other applicants, perhaps smarter, perhaps a harder worker. This is the basis of the way in which we are normally graded in school. And, in fact, we saw this among posters who were the first to report acceptances: They all said: "I had a really strong SOP and WS."

    My point is that this is likely a delusion: At this level, the pool of applicants is just too strong; many many people have SOPs and WSs that, objectively (if that even means anything) are just as strong; and it strains credulity to suggest that an admissions committee would even be interested in spending its time trying to make fine gradations among a pool of exceptionally strong applicants to see which were the "very, very best" in some objective terms. They just have no interest in that. Rather, they first come up with a large group of potentially admissible candidates, and then ask the relevant faculty to pick which ones they would want to work with. And this usually means picking applicants whose work resonates most closely with their own.

    And this explains why people are accepted to some schools rather than others. The group of applicants to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley and Duke assuredly contains a good deal of overlap, and yet, for the very most part, it is not true that they admit the same students. How do we explain this difference? Since the applications people submit to each school are by and large the same, it can only be that each school is looking for different things.

    And, moreover, in a significant number of cases, what the schools tell successful applicants were the reasons for their acceptance, is different from what the applicants themselves thought it would be. ---See the "Perspectives on Success" thread, and also my recent question to mikers86 on the 2014 applicants thread. Which suggests that in many cases applicants are not particularly good at figuring out what adcoms are looking for.

    If one had the time, funds and inclination, I think the best way to gain admission to a particular graduate program would be to visit and talk with the students who are already there, and figure out what sorts of subject matters and methodologies they represent, and then incorporate these into one's own SOP and WS. Because it is likely that the next class they admit will resemble the recent classes in these respects.

    Coach? Or Dooney Burke?
  11. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Strong Flat White in Dear 2015 Applicants, Here is What the 2014ers Learned This Year That Might Help You   
    To the contrary: It's not meant cynically at all. Let me explain.

    Let's look at what you've said: First, you said that you worked really hard on your WS, polishing and polishing, implying that you thought it was particuarly good, and at least suggesting that it was better than other applicants', and that it was on this basis, its goodness, its being superior, that you believe you were accepted.

    Second, you referenced the fact that professors you spoke with *mentioned* the SOP and WS when you spoke with them. Now, let me ask: Is this really the same as what you said first? Does it imply what you said first?

    The question is: Did they say, "Gee, the quality of your work was clearly *superior* to those of other applicants, and that's why we accepted you"?

    Or was it more along the lines of "We thought these things you wrote about (subject matter, methodology, etc) were really *interesting* and that's why we accepted you"? (The implication being, of course, that we found it interesting because the very same things are interesting *to us*.)

    I would suggest it's more likely to be more like the latter. Ie, we're willing to spend the next six years with you because you're interested in the same things we are. ---Which is exactly the tribal sort of consideration on which fraternity and sorority admissions decisions are based. Not without reason, I might add.

    So, it might well be more the subject matter and methodology you or anyone chooses to write about, rather than whether your WS would have graded out as a 93 or 95 or 97 or 99, that determined why you were accepted. ---Although, to be sure, if another candidate's subject matter and methodolog were nearly the same as yours, then the goodness of the essay would be more likely to factor into the decision,

    There is, of course, a very strong inclination for a successful applicant to think that he/she was chosen ahead of others because the school thought he/she was "better" than other applicants, perhaps smarter, perhaps a harder worker. This is the basis of the way in which we are normally graded in school. And, in fact, we saw this among posters who were the first to report acceptances: They all said: "I had a really strong SOP and WS."

    My point is that this is likely a delusion: At this level, the pool of applicants is just too strong; many many people have SOPs and WSs that, objectively (if that even means anything) are just as strong; and it strains credulity to suggest that an admissions committee would even be interested in spending its time trying to make fine gradations among a pool of exceptionally strong applicants to see which were the "very, very best" in some objective terms. They just have no interest in that. Rather, they first come up with a large group of potentially admissible candidates, and then ask the relevant faculty to pick which ones they would want to work with. And this usually means picking applicants whose work resonates most closely with their own.

    And this explains why people are accepted to some schools rather than others. The group of applicants to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley and Duke assuredly contains a good deal of overlap, and yet, for the very most part, it is not true that they admit the same students. How do we explain this difference? Since the applications people submit to each school are by and large the same, it can only be that each school is looking for different things.

    And, moreover, in a significant number of cases, what the schools tell successful applicants were the reasons for their acceptance, is different from what the applicants themselves thought it would be. ---See the "Perspectives on Success" thread, and also my recent question to mikers86 on the 2014 applicants thread. Which suggests that in many cases applicants are not particularly good at figuring out what adcoms are looking for.

    If one had the time, funds and inclination, I think the best way to gain admission to a particular graduate program would be to visit and talk with the students who are already there, and figure out what sorts of subject matters and methodologies they represent, and then incorporate these into one's own SOP and WS. Because it is likely that the next class they admit will resemble the recent classes in these respects.

    Coach? Or Dooney Burke?
  12. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Ozymandias Melancholia in Books NOT to read-   
    Well, I have to say that I agree with much of what you've said.
     
    She's a very effective storyteller.  Rather than stepping back and providing background in more or less prosaic terms, she has the ability to start and keep every chapter in the action, providing details along the way in a manner that fully catches the reader up without ever interrupting the story's advance.  The pages turn themselves.  This is hard to do, and she seems to do it effortlessly.
     
    There is also no mistaking her commitment to the range of ideas expressed, and I wouldn't begin to disagree about their merits or importance.  And she has the rare ability to express ideas in a popular form, accessible to everyone.
     
    I just found nothing of particular interest in the prose or in the form.  She seems to view the novel as a congenial delivery mechanism for her ideas, the words as mere instrumentalities.  Each chapter has a set of ideas she wants to convey, and once they have been, the chapter ends, and she moves on to the next chapter's ideas.  The work is a contribution to the history and discussion of ideas, but my question is whether there is anything specifically literary about this.  
     
    The same ideas can equally well have been raised in many other forms (magazine articles; letters to the editor; cocktail party conversation; documentary films; scholarly symposia).  We would normally classify the ideas as primarily of sociological or political or anthropological or philosophical interest.  It seems more or less accidental that here they take the outward form of a novel, other than the fact that this form, in her hands, is a lot more interesting to a far broader audience.
     
    IMO specifically literary merit, value and interest lies in the way a writer uses words and raises ideas in a way that simultaneously explores and questions the possibility of the form of writing itself.  ideally, there is no separation of the form from the content; this particular work can only have found expression in the particular form it took; the best writing has a trajectory that aims at something beyond ideas, themes, etc.  ---This perspective is sometimes referred to as "modernism," but I would argue that it applies to great writing of (all) other eras as well.
     
    This is likewise true of other arts.  For example, a jazz piece may begin with a theme, but the interest in the music, and of the musician, is in exploring the possibilities of music that arise out of the theme, seeking through changes the perfect "blue" note, the seemingly "wrong" or out of place note that is nonetheless right.  This becomes the perspective from which the rest of the piece is then understood, in purely musical terms, transcending its starting place in the theme, ultimately communicating something more than could otherwise have been found in the theme alone.
     
    Others may, of course, have other viewpoints.
  13. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from guinevere29 in Perspective on Success   
    Most of the top-tier schools have notified applicants of their decisions, and certain forum members have had repeated success.  (I can think of four in particular, but there are probably more.)  I think it would be exceptionally helpful in many ways to many readers if those members who have been admitted to multiple schools among the top ten or fifteen or so would describe their applications in general terms, to give everyone some general idea of what it takes to gain admission to those schools.
     
    For example, it might provide some context for those who were not admitted in understanding why not.  It may also provide some guidance to applicants in future years as to what their chances are, and whether it is worth the application fee.  It may also provide a sense of what "best practices" are helpful in achieving admission to these schools.
     
    There's no need to provide information so specific that it identifies anyone personally.  I'm thinking of a level of generality like:  Ivy undergrad, or top ivy undergrad, highly-ranked state university or average state university, private university, SLA, west-coast-ivy-equivalent, etc.
     
    It would probably be helpful to indicate your degree (BA or MA) and how many years, if any, it has been since you were last in school.  Also, if your undergraduate major was in a field other than English.
     
    Some general information regarding GPA and GRE would be useful.  I believe they will most likely show that a range of numbers is OK.  
     
    Information regarding letter writers would, I think, be particularly helpful:  For example, if they are well-known scholars at a top school; or if they are well-known scholars in your primary field of interest; or if they have a particularly close relation to one or more members of the faculty who may have had an influence in the admissions process (for example, if your LOR was a former student or mentor of a faculty member at a school you were applying to); or if your LOR had taught at that school at some point.
     
    Giving an indication of one's field of interest and/or research perspective would also be helpful, and whether there seemed to be a particularly strong and objective fit between your interests and those of the faculty at the schools you were admitted to.  Alternatively, how you saw the fit, and whether there seemed to be a better fit at the schools you were admitted to than at those where you were not.  Also interesting would be whether you tailored your statement of research interests differently to different schools.
     
    Things like "strong LORs" or "strong WS" would not be particularly useful, since most everyone's LORs are strong, and presumably everyone here is a good writer.  I think it's more helpful to say something about the letter writers themselves, since there is reason to think that not all letter writers have the same level of influence.  (A strong letter from Helen Vendler, say, might well be expected to carry more weight than an even stronger letter from someone less eminent.)  Also, it would be helpful to describe the extent, if any, of faculty involvement in reviewing and revising your SOP and WS.
     
    Basically, it would be interesting to see if any correlations can be drawn between certain sorts of applicant/application characteristics and repeated admission to the top schools.
  14. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Academicat in Perspective on Success   
    Most of the top-tier schools have notified applicants of their decisions, and certain forum members have had repeated success.  (I can think of four in particular, but there are probably more.)  I think it would be exceptionally helpful in many ways to many readers if those members who have been admitted to multiple schools among the top ten or fifteen or so would describe their applications in general terms, to give everyone some general idea of what it takes to gain admission to those schools.
     
    For example, it might provide some context for those who were not admitted in understanding why not.  It may also provide some guidance to applicants in future years as to what their chances are, and whether it is worth the application fee.  It may also provide a sense of what "best practices" are helpful in achieving admission to these schools.
     
    There's no need to provide information so specific that it identifies anyone personally.  I'm thinking of a level of generality like:  Ivy undergrad, or top ivy undergrad, highly-ranked state university or average state university, private university, SLA, west-coast-ivy-equivalent, etc.
     
    It would probably be helpful to indicate your degree (BA or MA) and how many years, if any, it has been since you were last in school.  Also, if your undergraduate major was in a field other than English.
     
    Some general information regarding GPA and GRE would be useful.  I believe they will most likely show that a range of numbers is OK.  
     
    Information regarding letter writers would, I think, be particularly helpful:  For example, if they are well-known scholars at a top school; or if they are well-known scholars in your primary field of interest; or if they have a particularly close relation to one or more members of the faculty who may have had an influence in the admissions process (for example, if your LOR was a former student or mentor of a faculty member at a school you were applying to); or if your LOR had taught at that school at some point.
     
    Giving an indication of one's field of interest and/or research perspective would also be helpful, and whether there seemed to be a particularly strong and objective fit between your interests and those of the faculty at the schools you were admitted to.  Alternatively, how you saw the fit, and whether there seemed to be a better fit at the schools you were admitted to than at those where you were not.  Also interesting would be whether you tailored your statement of research interests differently to different schools.
     
    Things like "strong LORs" or "strong WS" would not be particularly useful, since most everyone's LORs are strong, and presumably everyone here is a good writer.  I think it's more helpful to say something about the letter writers themselves, since there is reason to think that not all letter writers have the same level of influence.  (A strong letter from Helen Vendler, say, might well be expected to carry more weight than an even stronger letter from someone less eminent.)  Also, it would be helpful to describe the extent, if any, of faculty involvement in reviewing and revising your SOP and WS.
     
    Basically, it would be interesting to see if any correlations can be drawn between certain sorts of applicant/application characteristics and repeated admission to the top schools.
  15. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Strong Flat White in Perspective on Success   
    Most of the top-tier schools have notified applicants of their decisions, and certain forum members have had repeated success.  (I can think of four in particular, but there are probably more.)  I think it would be exceptionally helpful in many ways to many readers if those members who have been admitted to multiple schools among the top ten or fifteen or so would describe their applications in general terms, to give everyone some general idea of what it takes to gain admission to those schools.
     
    For example, it might provide some context for those who were not admitted in understanding why not.  It may also provide some guidance to applicants in future years as to what their chances are, and whether it is worth the application fee.  It may also provide a sense of what "best practices" are helpful in achieving admission to these schools.
     
    There's no need to provide information so specific that it identifies anyone personally.  I'm thinking of a level of generality like:  Ivy undergrad, or top ivy undergrad, highly-ranked state university or average state university, private university, SLA, west-coast-ivy-equivalent, etc.
     
    It would probably be helpful to indicate your degree (BA or MA) and how many years, if any, it has been since you were last in school.  Also, if your undergraduate major was in a field other than English.
     
    Some general information regarding GPA and GRE would be useful.  I believe they will most likely show that a range of numbers is OK.  
     
    Information regarding letter writers would, I think, be particularly helpful:  For example, if they are well-known scholars at a top school; or if they are well-known scholars in your primary field of interest; or if they have a particularly close relation to one or more members of the faculty who may have had an influence in the admissions process (for example, if your LOR was a former student or mentor of a faculty member at a school you were applying to); or if your LOR had taught at that school at some point.
     
    Giving an indication of one's field of interest and/or research perspective would also be helpful, and whether there seemed to be a particularly strong and objective fit between your interests and those of the faculty at the schools you were admitted to.  Alternatively, how you saw the fit, and whether there seemed to be a better fit at the schools you were admitted to than at those where you were not.  Also interesting would be whether you tailored your statement of research interests differently to different schools.
     
    Things like "strong LORs" or "strong WS" would not be particularly useful, since most everyone's LORs are strong, and presumably everyone here is a good writer.  I think it's more helpful to say something about the letter writers themselves, since there is reason to think that not all letter writers have the same level of influence.  (A strong letter from Helen Vendler, say, might well be expected to carry more weight than an even stronger letter from someone less eminent.)  Also, it would be helpful to describe the extent, if any, of faculty involvement in reviewing and revising your SOP and WS.
     
    Basically, it would be interesting to see if any correlations can be drawn between certain sorts of applicant/application characteristics and repeated admission to the top schools.
  16. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from ExponentialDecay in Perspective on Success   
    Most of the top-tier schools have notified applicants of their decisions, and certain forum members have had repeated success.  (I can think of four in particular, but there are probably more.)  I think it would be exceptionally helpful in many ways to many readers if those members who have been admitted to multiple schools among the top ten or fifteen or so would describe their applications in general terms, to give everyone some general idea of what it takes to gain admission to those schools.
     
    For example, it might provide some context for those who were not admitted in understanding why not.  It may also provide some guidance to applicants in future years as to what their chances are, and whether it is worth the application fee.  It may also provide a sense of what "best practices" are helpful in achieving admission to these schools.
     
    There's no need to provide information so specific that it identifies anyone personally.  I'm thinking of a level of generality like:  Ivy undergrad, or top ivy undergrad, highly-ranked state university or average state university, private university, SLA, west-coast-ivy-equivalent, etc.
     
    It would probably be helpful to indicate your degree (BA or MA) and how many years, if any, it has been since you were last in school.  Also, if your undergraduate major was in a field other than English.
     
    Some general information regarding GPA and GRE would be useful.  I believe they will most likely show that a range of numbers is OK.  
     
    Information regarding letter writers would, I think, be particularly helpful:  For example, if they are well-known scholars at a top school; or if they are well-known scholars in your primary field of interest; or if they have a particularly close relation to one or more members of the faculty who may have had an influence in the admissions process (for example, if your LOR was a former student or mentor of a faculty member at a school you were applying to); or if your LOR had taught at that school at some point.
     
    Giving an indication of one's field of interest and/or research perspective would also be helpful, and whether there seemed to be a particularly strong and objective fit between your interests and those of the faculty at the schools you were admitted to.  Alternatively, how you saw the fit, and whether there seemed to be a better fit at the schools you were admitted to than at those where you were not.  Also interesting would be whether you tailored your statement of research interests differently to different schools.
     
    Things like "strong LORs" or "strong WS" would not be particularly useful, since most everyone's LORs are strong, and presumably everyone here is a good writer.  I think it's more helpful to say something about the letter writers themselves, since there is reason to think that not all letter writers have the same level of influence.  (A strong letter from Helen Vendler, say, might well be expected to carry more weight than an even stronger letter from someone less eminent.)  Also, it would be helpful to describe the extent, if any, of faculty involvement in reviewing and revising your SOP and WS.
     
    Basically, it would be interesting to see if any correlations can be drawn between certain sorts of applicant/application characteristics and repeated admission to the top schools.
  17. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan reacted to cherish_wisdom in What does it take to get into a top-tier program?   
    I spoke to a professor at Stanford about this a while ago (I was inquiring about the Philosophy program there), and basically he told me that the most important parts to an application, in order, were:
     
    1) Letters of Reference
    2) Writing Sample & SOP (joint)
    3) GPA
    4) GRE
     
    Now, I asked him specifically about the prestige of the undergraduate university, as I went to a smaller Australian university, and his answer made a lot of sense. No, it does not matter what undergraduate university you went to per se. What matters, and is the main reason why top tier UGs go to top tier graduate programs, are the letters of reference that you get from them. So, when they get a letter from a superstar academic in the field, it is treated with a lot more respect and (and this is key) trust. Even if your LORs are excellent and amazing, if the faculty reviewing your application have never heard of that person and have no reference to their own academic abilities or judgment, it unfortunately makes your application a lot weaker than someone who gets a short simple recommendation from a world leader in the field.
     
    So theoretically your UG institution does not matter. Practically, however, it could matter a lot depending on the faculty.
  18. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from ComeBackZinc in What does it take to get into a top-tier program?   
    Let's recall that this thread is about getting into the "top tier" schools.
     
    It may be that academics in general say that undergrad institution does not matter, but the question here is whether it matters to academics (and adcomm members in particular) at the top tier schools.  The prestige of the university at which they teach assuredly matters to them; and, I would guess, many of them went to name brand UGs as well, the prestige of which also matters to them.
     
    I would also note that it would be highly non-PC for an adcomm member to come out and "say" that UG institution matters a lot.  It sounds too elitist.  But it is hardly rare in human affairs for people to say one thing and actually do another.
     
    As in any profession, the primary question the group of insiders ask themselves in evaluating an outsider/applicant is whether the outsider is likely to become "one of us."  The more the applicant "looks" like one of the insiders, the more the insiders are likely to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.  To someone whose self-image is defined in very important part by academic pedigree, applicants who have a "lesser" pedigree immediately have another hurdle to clear, because they immediately appear as "other."
  19. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from hashslinger in What does it take to get into a top-tier program?   
    I would second the comments of hashslinger and comebackzinc.

    1. Most professors at most top schools went to a name-brand college and believe that name-brand colleges (and their students) are better than non-name-brand colleges (and their students). It's a pretty general rule of human nature that people are more comfortable with and view in higher regard other people who are like themselves in relevant respects. This is one of those cases. It doesn't mean you cannot be admitted from a non-name-brand school, but it does mean that you have higher hurdles to overcome.

    2. If Professor A at your PhD school helped you get a job at University B, then, when Professor A calls you (or writes a LOR) and suggests that undergraduate student C would make a fine graduate student in your department, chances are pretty good that you will make the extra effort to see that C is admitted to your program.

    Similarly, if PhD school D manages to place one of its PhD's at University E, chances are pretty good that when professors at University E lobby strongly on behalf of student F for admission to D's PhD program, D is going to think twice before denying F admission.

    No mystery here. Just the way the world works in general.
  20. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from ComeBackZinc in What does it take to get into a top-tier program?   
    I would second the comments of hashslinger and comebackzinc.

    1. Most professors at most top schools went to a name-brand college and believe that name-brand colleges (and their students) are better than non-name-brand colleges (and their students). It's a pretty general rule of human nature that people are more comfortable with and view in higher regard other people who are like themselves in relevant respects. This is one of those cases. It doesn't mean you cannot be admitted from a non-name-brand school, but it does mean that you have higher hurdles to overcome.

    2. If Professor A at your PhD school helped you get a job at University B, then, when Professor A calls you (or writes a LOR) and suggests that undergraduate student C would make a fine graduate student in your department, chances are pretty good that you will make the extra effort to see that C is admitted to your program.

    Similarly, if PhD school D manages to place one of its PhD's at University E, chances are pretty good that when professors at University E lobby strongly on behalf of student F for admission to D's PhD program, D is going to think twice before denying F admission.

    No mystery here. Just the way the world works in general.
  21. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from pinkrobot in Fall 2014 applicants??   
    Fit is relevant only from the school's point of view, not the applicant's. The question is how the committee members view you and how you fit within their collective vision of what they want their group of graduate atudents to look like.

    It should go without saying that we, as applicants, have little or no sense as to what each committee may be looking for. We just don't have any reliable information about that. They are departments full of human beings who have complex interrelationships with one another, personal, social, political, historical and much more. All of that, none of which we are privy to, goes into the process whereby admissions decisions are made.

    Part of the process is no doubt rational, but much of it would doubtless strike an observer as quite irrational. It's more like a black box that spits out decisions, but whose interior working are mysterious.

    Accordingly, it matters zero how well any one of us may think we fit into a particular program. It could hardly be less relevant. The best you can so is present yourself in the best light possible, so the committee will get a clear sense of who you are. Then let them do their job.

    What I think is important is to avoid saying anything in your application that could serve to easily weed you out. Remember that the committee members are all exceptionally well-trained, critical and perceptive readers. They will immediately pick up on and hone in on anything in your application that seems odd, weird or, worst, potentially unprofessional. They are looking for people who will in some form or another go on to represent the department, so ideally they would prefer to view successful applicants as potential colleagues. IMO the very best thing you can do is show your SOP to the one or two people you know who have the best judgment about practical matters. Ie, the very shrewdest people you know. Ask them how your writing reads, and what suggestions they might have. They will be able to spot, objectively, any flaws in your approach and suggest ways to fix them.
  22. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Strong Flat White in Fall 2014 applicants??   
    Fit is relevant only from the school's point of view, not the applicant's. The question is how the committee members view you and how you fit within their collective vision of what they want their group of graduate atudents to look like.

    It should go without saying that we, as applicants, have little or no sense as to what each committee may be looking for. We just don't have any reliable information about that. They are departments full of human beings who have complex interrelationships with one another, personal, social, political, historical and much more. All of that, none of which we are privy to, goes into the process whereby admissions decisions are made.

    Part of the process is no doubt rational, but much of it would doubtless strike an observer as quite irrational. It's more like a black box that spits out decisions, but whose interior working are mysterious.

    Accordingly, it matters zero how well any one of us may think we fit into a particular program. It could hardly be less relevant. The best you can so is present yourself in the best light possible, so the committee will get a clear sense of who you are. Then let them do their job.

    What I think is important is to avoid saying anything in your application that could serve to easily weed you out. Remember that the committee members are all exceptionally well-trained, critical and perceptive readers. They will immediately pick up on and hone in on anything in your application that seems odd, weird or, worst, potentially unprofessional. They are looking for people who will in some form or another go on to represent the department, so ideally they would prefer to view successful applicants as potential colleagues. IMO the very best thing you can do is show your SOP to the one or two people you know who have the best judgment about practical matters. Ie, the very shrewdest people you know. Ask them how your writing reads, and what suggestions they might have. They will be able to spot, objectively, any flaws in your approach and suggest ways to fix them.
  23. Upvote
    SleepyOldMan got a reaction from Ozymandias Melancholia in Fall 2014 applicants??   
    1.  A little parable about "fit":  One male talking to another about the object of his affections:
     
    Male 1:  I just love her.  I know we would make a great couple.
     
    Male 2:  What makes you think so?
     
    Male 1:  She has blonde hair.  I love girls with blonde hair!
     
    [Later, the object of Male 1's affections is talking to Male 2 about Male 1]:  I don't think we have much in common.
     
    2.  If you receive a request for hard copies of your transcripts, you are in (unless the unofficial copies you submitted with your transcript were fraudulent).  
     
    Universities are like corporations, and to understand how they operate, try think like a corporation.  One main concern of corporations is what they call "controls":  Ie, they put systems in place that are designed to prevent the corporation from making mistakes that make it look bad, paying out money that it isn't obligated to pay out, etc.
     
    Here's how I think it works in the grad school application context:  The university is mostly content to have departments to make decisions as to whom they want to accept, and they want the process to be as simple as possible, without generating excess paperwork that needs to be filed, kept track of, etc.  Hence, in most cases, no official transcripts are asked for at the start.  But when it comes time to make offers of funding (i.e., committing university funds), then the corporate governance system wants to make sure that offers are not made on the basis of transcripts that have not been officially certified.  So, if they ask you for official transcripts, they are probably at the stage where they are going to the graduate school administration to ask them for funding of some kind, awards, fellowships, etc.
     
    3.  Although we may have little else on our minds besides graduate school acceptances, the departments themselves, and individual professors in particular, have lots of other things on their minds.  This afternoon's lecture.  Tonight's hot date with a colleague from the computer science department.  Taking time to pay one's monthly bills.  So, it really shouldn't be surprising if not all decisions are made at once, or, even if they are, if not all notifications are made at once.  
     
    Ie, surprising as it may seem, it's really not all about us.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use