jacib

They don't and it isn't. I have not seen any non-professional graduate school ranking that takes into account acceptance rates. It's all based on peer surveys. National Research Council's methodology: Each university granting a doctorate in an area was asked to rate each of the other doctorate granting universities in that area according to faculty quality and effectiveness of program. The resulting responses were converted to scores (having two decimal places) ranging from 0.00 to 5.00 where for faculty quality 0 denoted ``not sufficient for doctoral education'' and 5 denoted ``distinguished,'' while for effectiveness of program 0 denoted ``not effective'' and 5 denoted ``extremely effective.'' Based on these scores, rankings were obtained of all doctorate granting institutions within each area. US News and World Report's science methodology: Rankings of doctoral programs in the sciences are based on the results of surveys sent to academics in computer science, mathematics, and physics during the fall of 2007, in biological sciences and chemistry during fall 2006, and in other fields during fall 2005. The individuals rated the quality of the program at each institution from "marginal" (1) to "outstanding" (5). Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know." The schools with the highest average scores among those who rated them were sorted in descending order and appear here. Surveys in biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, Earth sciences, mathematics, and physics were conducted by Synovate. USNWR's social science and humanities methodology: Rankings of doctoral programs in the social sciences and humanities are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to academics in each discipline. Each school offering a doctoral program was sent two surveys (with the exception of criminology, where each school received four). The questionnaires asked respondents to rate the academic quality of the program at each institution on a 5-point scale: outstanding (5), strong (4), good (3), adequate (2), or marginal (1). Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know." Scores for each school were determined by computing a trimmed mean (eliminating the two highest and the two lowest responses) of the ratings of all respondents who rated that school; average scores were then sorted in descending order. There is more information on things like response rates on each of those websites. Also interesting is that the NRC has done a more recent survey but they don't know how to use the results! Also interesting is the unexplained, very slight differences in methodology between the science and social science methodologies. In fact, it's not even clear if they used different methods, or just wrote up the same methodology differently! Anyway, no admission rates in and of themselves aren't taken into account by anyone, but I think schools like to keep application rates high for other reasons that rankings or prestige, namely, because they are wary of discouraging potential students, especially minority students or students with very specific specialties, who they might otherwise want, even if accepting someone with those scores is a very rare event. It's probably quite difficult to predict the pool year to year, especially once specialties are taken into consideration.

I've posted this elsewhere, but in sociology, a discipline that can either be quite quantitative or quite qualitative, my father (a sociology professor) got the following "inside deal" from a colleague at a public university with a top-ten ranked program : "One low sore won't hurt; two low scores need to have something pretty outstanding to counter balance;a bad GRE and a less than stellar record will have a hard time, though we admitted one such person who wona prize for the best senor thesis." This seems to argue in favor of that whole holisticism thing we've been talking about. The guy gave some other advice that seemed quite candid so I have to assume that this advice is also completely accurate, and if we are being "lied to" about GRE cutoffs, it's not by everyone. I think it depends on the program. (Based on non-empirical evidence) I think math/non-social science programs tend to use the presort a little bit more, but then again, they have things like perquisites which a social science or a humanities program usually don't have. Many social science and humanities programs don't even require a background in the subject. I think the Anyway, the above comment seems to argue that for this school in sociology, they consider both numbers separately, and want at least one of them to be quite good. I've got the feeling that many schools will be different (my father guessed schools that are strong in demography want higher quant scores from their students, even the ones who don't mention demography in their statement but especially those who do). From what I've gathered on the forums, in English they don't even look at the quant (so people claim). In Religion (a field where number are probably only used ever so slightly more than English), that one needs at least an acceptable quant score is the general consensus and if schools have a cutoff, it seems to be based on the sum of the quant and verbal. Lastly, its funny that no one else on here seems to be worried about a GPA cutoff. My coworker and I were talking about this today at work and for both of us, we thought these was our weakest features. He even said, "If they see passed my 3.07 GPA..." and he's right. His major GPA is 3.5+, his writing sample is really good (especially since it was an independent research project), his GRE's are both above 700+ (I forget exactly what), he has research ability in at least three languages. Why is no one worried about a GPA cutoff? People only seem to worry about a few bad grades they got in community college twenty years ago.

Dude, tell me about teenage social drama! I think I offended my favorite student last week. I mean it's cool now, but I felt really really guilty. I'd like an office where people could visit and be unnecessarily nervous before entering (like I was outside all my favorite professors' offices). And I'd like this office to be floor-to-ceiling filled with neatly organized books.

Every school takes cultural factors into account. Especially in terms of GRE score. From what an overly candid professor told me, public schools more than private schools. Minority candidates at some large state universities are allegedly judged more based on their GPA than their GRE. Obviously visible minorities get more of a break than invisible minorities. A lily white cohort simply will not do at most institutions these days, especially because schools want to have possible mentors for the undergraduates they're trying to attract. Blacks and hispanics more than others, but even at my undergraduate university, there was a big controversy because there were very few Asian professors in the social sciences and humanities, and there were many more Asian students interested in those fields. Having taught several exams, the GRE verbal section is the hardest to study for of all the sections I've encountered (I can't speak to the LSAT). That doesn't mean it can't be studied for, as we all know, but it certainly requires quite a bit of time commitment. That said, I work full time and studied a lot for my GRE using two different books (only one of which I paid for). I stopped going out for the two week immediately before and studied vocabulary like a mad thing. Additionally, I worked on all the math I had forgotten. I had to reteach myself all the rules about triangles more complex than "the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees." I did well because of my studying, even though I haven't taken a math course in more than 5 years. But just because can (and these days, should) be studied for does not mean its free of bias. I don't think this is true--I think writing sample and SoP are cheaper to work on and (at least in my field) much more important.

If the schools have problems with it, especially if your recommender is in the field, the adcomm may contact the recommender directly. But this is one of those things that's "out of your hands" and unless it seems like you yourself wrote the recommendation, I don't think any programs will consider it negatively. Assuming its an academic recommender. If it's an employer then I think they may want it on letterhead.

I don't think its reasonable to assume you need a 3.8 GPA. In fact, that sounds distinctly unreasonable. It depends what your undergraduate institution was as well, GRE scores are often used by adcomm members to compare across schools if they are not familiar with your undergrad (or so I heard from a professor). I have never seen a graduate program with an AVERAGE GPA as high as 3.8. Whoever told you that is pulling your chain, I'd imagine. BU, as of the last NRC, is ranked 51 in anthropology. I think if you should strong interest in a field they're specifically interested, and have a good writing sample/SoP, you'll have a shot, but, as always, its a crap shoot, and people who apply to fewer schools generally get in to fewer schools. You can look at the admit rates for Minnesota, ranked exactly one higher on the NRC rankings (circa ten years ago now), http://www.grad.umn.edu/data/stats/1008000.html If you notice, they don't give GPA's because GPA's are quite hard to compare. Especially for a masters program, I don't think you scores will rule you out, but I wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Emphasize that they're perfect for you without sounding creepy, mention the specifics. Make your statement of purpose quite strong and purposeful. Say it's the forensic part you're interested, BU is great for that, blah blah blah. That will help your application surely. It's not a waste of time to apply but neither is it a sure thing, so you shouldn't slack off on your other applications.

I was the singer of a hardcore (punk) band called "Fuck Your Face" for almost two years. Our guitarist ended up bleeding at about 50% of our shows.

1. Northwestern has one or two sociologists directly affiliated with their business school who work on Economic/Political Sociology. I've heard that social networks are really hot right now, and they're being used in all these really strange, unpredictable places. One really cool professor I want to work with at Columbia, for example, has looked at social networks in the 16th Century Ottoman Empire.... 2. No idea, but I believe generally people work under specific grants. It varies by school. But finding a professor with similar research interests would help you get access to his/her grant money. Or if you offered them something that they didn't have, but wanted (foreign language knowledge, math skills, I don't know what else). 3. No idea, other than a place like NORC (National Opinion Research Center) but that's assuming you get into demography. 4. At many top programs, as many as half of the students didn't major in sociology as undergraduates. At top private universities, funding is often guaranteed for five years. At public universities, funding varies, but I get the sense it's mainly based on things like overall academic record and GRE scores (as well as teaching duties and such, obviously). If you take classes that show an aptitude for sociology in general, or a firm background in the area of a research subject, that will likely help your chances of admission, but I haven't heard any rumors that specific classes help you get more funding.

Go to this place http://www.ets.org/gre/general/prepare/powerprep/index.html and look at the third question, it explains how to run it on Vista. Second, http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/011499.GRE.pdf this is official stuff, do you think those are like your questions? Here are more http://www.ets.org/gre/general/prepare/sample_questions/index.html, though they do not adapt based on your right and wrong answers. Those are the way of gauging what the questions are like: they're real questions.

Don't worry, I found in my fit paragraph an incomplete sentence for one of my top schools. Something like "This program is of particular interest for me because ." and while I had made it clear in the previous sentence what I was about to stay (the app had a 2500 word limit so conciseness wasn't a big thing, and it was my alma mater so I knew a lot of details why this program was awesome), it would have been better to actual write the damn thing out. Honestly, you're worrying about something that wasn't even part of what you wrote. We all need "chillax."

Download and take the official GRE PowerPrep. That's the best indication of what a real test is like. Any non-computer based test will naturally not be as accurate as the real GRE, but I found that even the CDs from Barrons were innaccurate for the quant section (I ended up with more than 150 higher on the real test than Barron's computer tests).

The percentiles have changed a lot over the years. I would say anything over the 90th percentile(just don't remember what the most recent numbers are) is considered a good score; below 70ath is a badscore. If someone is weak in both verbal and quantitative, they would have a hard time getting in unless those scores were counterbalanced by an outstanding GPA from a good school. Then there's the third part,and I have no idea how to weight the [analytical writing]. Personally, i ignore it but look very closely at the essay and personal statement as well as the writing sample the student turns in Generally, it's a question of balancing one thing against the other, and I have found much to my dismay that recent admissions committees vary widely in how much they weight GRE's and sadly enough,individuals also vary.One low sore won't hurt; two low scores need to have something pretty outstanding to counter balance;a bad GRE and a less than stellar record will have a hard time, though we admitted one such person who won a prize for the best senor thesis. That is the "inside scoop" from a top public university. My father is a sociologist, and because I was applying to grad schools, he emailed his colleagues at other departments and got their take on GRE scores. I'm not actually applying to any of these schools, but these are places where my dad knows people quite well (and who actually know me pretty well) and they were all quite candid with my dad so there's no reason to doubt this info. Another top public school wrote back: I actually have a precise answer for this. Mean GRE of admitted students in 2008 was 1349, Verbal 644, Quant 705, and Analytical 5. In 2009, the mean GRE was 1409, Verbal 679, Quant 730, and Analytical 5.1Of course, what really matters is the writing sample and statement of purpose A professor at a top ivy league school wrote: We have not always ruled people out on low GREs. But generally people have at least around 630-650 in each. Sometimes verbal is a little higher and math a little lower. Foreign students often get by with lower verbal because they have higher math. Score in high 600s and low 700s do attract more instant attention.Some students with around 630-630 have decided to retake for application. However, one of the professors at the one of the public schools listed above specifically wrote My guess is that a place like [the ivy league university above] would be much more rigid than we are about scores, because they are more concerned with improving with their "ranking" and have a larger percent of demographers.At least in one case I can tell you [a different ivy league university] is more rigid than we are. You should ask [a person we both know there]. Whether the professor from Penn was write when she said that the numbers need to be "at least" 90%, I'm not sure that's right (though the Ivy league school did say 630, which is about 90%), but all the schools indicated flexibility, none indicated a hard cap anywhere, and it seemed clear that the GRE scores could be balanced out with info from elsewhere. 90% obviously doesn't apply to the math (780=89%). Private schools seem to care about GRE more than public ones (though this sample size is very very small). Of course, outside the top ten scores get lower fast, I think.

Whoa but dude! Be careful, you may find yourself getting anxious over nothing by just putting one date in your planner. At least mark off that whole week... better yet find out the full RANGE of dates of acceptances from the thingy, not just the first one posted, or you will likely find yourself unnecessarily upset by a few "rejections" that turn out to be tardiness (or just a different schedule from last year). I'm trying to do the opposite... not be aware of the dates other than somewhere mid Feb to mid March.... that way I won't feel specific anxiety, just the general creeping kind.

Because its the only way we can actually compare ourselves to each other. It's no good to say "Oh they didn't want anyone working on China this year" because that's out of our control. GRE is basically the only thing we can change besides SoP. So it's comparable variable, and the only one that is easily quantified on the same standard (GPA's probably vary a lot depending on school).... of course we, as sociologists, are going to love it, even if it doesn't actually mean much. It could well refer to both. One professor at a top ten school sent my old man (another professor) an email that said, "Then there's the third part,and I have no idea how to weight the [analytical writing]. Personally, i ignore it but look very closely at the essay and personal statement as well as the writing sample the student turns in" Another one sent something like "A lot of the old timers don't know what the new writing section means so they all just ignore it." It wouldn't surprise me if one or two schools were brave enough to adopt this as an official policy, rather than just an unofficial one.

Barron's has by far the most in depth verbal section, I only really glanced at the math part. However, I took the official ETS PowerPrep exams and the two on the Barron's CD and cannot recall anything on my real GRE that was not on those two. I think there was like only one standard deviation question, a topic that wasn't covered by Barrons, but it was ridiculously easy and basically all that it demanded was to know the most basic concept of standard deviation (to lower it, choose something in the middle, to raise it choose something that's an outlier). Overall I felt sufficiently prepared by those two things. What did you feel wasn't covered? Some questions I didn't like (I feel the chart questions are particularly stupid) but I felt like everything I'd seen before.

Don't worry, many programs don't even look at that score at all (a few programs are even bold enough to say so in their FAQs). Your writing sample is way more important. My father is a professor, and he got professors at other school to send him their average GRE scores. Some of his colleagues didn't even bother sending the AW scores and some of the ones that did send the AW average wrote comments as if there were only two scores ("A low score in section could be counterbalanced with a high score in the other"). In all likelihood, all social science programs probably treat it similarly; I'd imagine humanities programs would generally ignore it, too. Maybe science programs might use it as a tie breaker, but your 86% in Verbal matters a lot more even there. Don't fret.

If my subfield has a hot journal, it's a blog edited by the Social Science Research Counsel called the The Immanent Frame. It has posts by the biggest names who study this subject, be they from Anthropology, Sociology, History, Political Science, Religion, Law, Philosophy or whatever. It's so cool! I know a professor (who has never been published on it) who assigned subscribing to it as part of her course requirements for a Poli Sci graduate class on Secularism. It's meant to be a forum so you can actually sign up for an RSS feed of comments on each individual post! It's so rad! Talk about raising the level of discourse on the internet. I think everyone in the field is really excited about it, and I hope I will get brownie points for mentioning in it in my SoPs (a few professors I want to work with write in it). There are apparently similar projects in other fields, political philosophy (Public Reason) and philosophy of action/free will (The Garden of Forking Paths) and one more (general?) political one (Crooked Timber). I think those are more like traditional blogs with a set cast of characters rather than the Immanent Frame which functions more like a true journal (I don't know if any contributor has more than four or five posts, not cutting the "Off The Cuff" section) nor are they so willfully interdisciplinary. I don't read any of those (really not interested in their topics) but I do read Freakonomics because it often turns me onto really interesting economic papers (like the post about Peter Leeson's recent work on trial by ordeal and the several related to his work on historical piracy, as well as all these neat things that Emily Oster does, and Levitt's own work on prostitution among other things [i'm too lazy to go back through an find all the links, I just wanted to show that it actually links to the papers]). Are there any good academic blogs in other fields? One thing I hate about blogs is that they inherently reward commenters who think fastest but not necessarily those who think "best". To have successful academic blogs, there needs to be a more Amazon style "was this comment pertinent and insightful" function so that the first comments posted aren't necessarily the first ones displayed.

+2 I guess. If you include it, I'd put it at the bottom in "other activities" or whatever and perhaps under the same category as your Sunday School work (depending on if it was invited/prestigious what not). It also depends on what you want to do with your MTS. If speaking at those events is the kind of thing you want to do, I'd find a way to include it somewhere.

It will of course help, but it probably depends on the field. Science grants are more important and science PhD students are expected to bring in funding. In a lot of the humanities and social sciences, school already guarantee five years of funding, so schools care less, and while encouraged to bring in some funding, it is not required. 1300 is not that low, and while below average, I'm not absolutely positive that it would be outside the lowest quartile in some top schools in some programs--especially programs where one of the scores is basically ignored. If an English PhD candidate had a 400 quant 800 verbal, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid. If a Math PhD had the opposite, again, I don't think it would be a problem. Considering that at top departments, the GRE average is often around 1400, and considering the number of 1500+ scores I've seen, there must also be at least a few 1300-. If your friend is foreign with a low verbal score, this is even less of a problem. An external fellowship will always help, especially in the sciences, but I don't think it is a deal maker any more than a high GRE score is. Yes, depending on the field, I'd say she has a shot even without the funding, assuming the rest of her application is particularly strong; 1200 is the highest "GRE cut-off" rumor I've heard.

Perhaps people could be encouraged to make an account that they only use once? Like a SocFall2010a SocFall2010b etc. in order to post their stats in a truly anonymous way. Maybe this data gathering could also be retried AFTER admissions? From what I could gather, AVERAGE GRE score at most top 20 places seems to be 1300-1400. Considering the number of people on this who, yes, do have a GRE that is above 1500, I can conclude three things: 1) high GRE does not guarantee you admission. 2) Figuring a few of the 1500+ people get in, there are probably quite a few people admitted in the 1100-1300 range. 1) and 2) lead me directly to supposition 3) GRE scores really don't seem to make that much difference in admittance. Certainly they are not a barrier which cannot be overcome, and equally certainly they do not ensure admission.

No doubt submit one! You should definitely include all the optional things (with the possible exception of a diversity statement if you're feeling really undiverse that day). Well, at least this is the rule with undergrad apps... regardless, I don't see how submitting an optional thing could hurt you (unless it was like 6 recommendations where the decent ones drown out the great ones).

Actually my dad's a professor, and I had him look at the drafts for letters I wrote asking for recs. He made me take that part out because he thought it sounded stupid. I forget what he made me take out, but definitely the word "positive" had to go according to him. Not that it matters obviously, I think he just thought it was stupid and redundant. I had included it because that's what we were uniformly taught in high school, but I think when applying to graduate school, recs will be between good and bland, instead of among good, bland, and bad. I think it would take a lot for a professor to write a negative recommendation. I mean obviously you don't lose points for asking for a positive rec, but I don't think it is an effective gatekeeper which causes that many professors to demur.

There are enough intrinsic differences that it shouldn't be necessary to read the letters. One of them is in the field and has never written a letter before? Well since that one is in the field, they should probably stay. That means there are two. Your friend chose 4 people to write recs, not 5, so there is obviously a sense that these were the best four. If they can choose the most appropriate four, then they can choose the most appropriate three. I had this same problem (but I was doing all mine online) and I switched between two former graduate instructors for my third rec; only two schools allowed three letters and only three letters, and the first I did with one (because I felt like he knew me better) and the second I did with the other (because the first one hadn't been submitted any letters yet, even though it was a few weeks after the first deadline). There are many factors here. I mean, if you knew you could get away with plagiarism would you? Again, a victimless crime. I agree with whoever said that intellectual dishonesty is probably not the way you want to start off grad school. (Yes in a different place I did defend someone who read a letter... but I think there is a difference between discouraging a bad deed before it is done and condemning it afterward). The thing is here: what if one is mediocre? Will the read then start to worry about all the others and be miserable for the next two months? I think there is more to risk than to gain. Your friend waved their right and a (wo)man is only as good as h(is/h)er word.

I teach SATs and one of my favorite students (who is admittedly a bit of a space cadet) confessed to me that one time she wrote a school essay in text message language (in turkish, they just tend to leave out vowels and y's a lot, e.g. bn gdiim mi?=ben gidiyim mi?=should i go?). I just kept looking at her and saying "No like how" "I just forgot what I was writing" "No but like how! How did you forget!" "I just forgot okay!" It's so strange when a boss (who I am friends with) sends me a text that says something like "can u work 2morrow? i need some1 2 cover 4 james" Even in texts, I generally try to use proper punctuation and capitalization. Those can be dispensed with on occasion (especially capitalization), but I will always at least write the damn words out.

Is your sister in the sciences, social sciences or humanites? Most SoPs (mainly humanities, some social science) I've seen start with an anecdote (often a why i'm interested or how i'm different or i can handle some shit type things) and move on from there through general interests in the field, research goals, experience/background, and why this program is rad (including who you want to work with). Those last bunch can be in any order, but make sure you have dealt with all (though what you specific research goals may not apply for Masters programs). Conveying all those things is important, but doing so with passion and excitement is even better, I'd say.