TXInstrument11

Fair enough. It's just that I was mentioned in a few posts or essentially quoted (using the same terms as me) and I felt like I was being described as ignorant, racist, naive, whiny, or all of the above. And when I did post in response, I have mostly gotten silence.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Has anyone bothered to read my subsequent comments or are we all more interested in arguing until the cows come home about something I didn't even mean? To summarize: I don't think society is equal or that minorities get undue favoritism in the admissions process, I am more concerned about Ivy League incest and nepotism than so-called "reverse racism", and I don't presume that universities "owe" me anything. If I could go back and edit my original post to clarify my meaning, I would, but can't because the post is too old.

Wow. Let's set the record straight here. I am certainly not stupid enough to think that society is equal and that everything with our education system is all fine and dandy. While I suggested that details LIKE age, race, and sex be scraped from early rounds of apps, I am not actually opposed to affirmative action-esque policies. Ironically, my reason for suggesting this was actually about levelling the playing field for those from less well-known schools and to combat favoritism (e.g.for a friend's student/child). Those "good ol' boy network" problems are a much more pressing concern for me than race or gender. Removing identifying information was simply to make that system much harder to maintain. Faculty would have to deliberately game the system by memorizing an applicant's test scores and GPA, and I don't think most would be will to go that far. Finally, I don't think admissions committees "owe" me anything. This thread was to talk about what we would *ideally* want from an admissions committee in a perfect world. And so what if apps in other domains (job world) are unfair? That doesn't preclude improvement in this one.

If someone comes off as arrogant, that's one thing. Turning away "overqualified" applicants is another. I was talking more about the latter. The practice appears to be highly illogical and strikes me as insecure.

For UIUC, I wrote my SOP to highlight my status as a first-gen college student. Then, I decided that came off as whiny (not to mention redundant since they ask you on the app) and ditched the paragraph for all of my other SOPs in favor of focusing on my research interests. I don't think it's a coincidence that UIUC is the only school to accept me so far. Ivy-League rock stars with heaps of research experience don't necessarily need to resort to this tactic, I think, but for folks coming from unknown schools - do it. Adcomms are more liable to take a chance with you if they see that you overcame some kind of barrier.

Well, crap, this is a fail! I should have included that question/option.

I've always just seen it as someone who has goals set and sticks to them, but a lot of folks do seem to use the more traditional definition. FWIW, my very conservative Southern family seems to think I am responsible even if they don't understand why I don't want kids.

Odd. I do not see either on the sheet! I see a $20K I/O entry for Irvine and two $30K entries of USC, but no mention of either of those. Stanford offers cadillac scholarships - $35K+.

Thanks to all the folks who have participated so far!

Oh, wow. And good point - I'll call the admissions office instead.

Thanks. I may ask a grad student at UIUC from my home institution (my lab, actually!) who I can probably trust not to blab. Or call the poor grad secretary yet again. That poor woman. I will be the death of her.

That sounds good. Hopefully UIUC has a similar policy. I believe my graduation will also fall in orientation week. Maybe we could fly back real quick for one day and then come right back? Expensive, but maybe it would be allowed. If push comes to shove, I'll tough it and just receive my diploma in the mail. () I really, really don't want to because it is very important to my family, especially my aging grandma who may not live to see another kid in the family graduate. However, I know they will also support my decision to do so if absolutely necessary - which would actually serve to make me feel even more douchey.

I may not be able to collect enough participants by the deadline. Do you think delaying graduation in order to collect these participants is a wise move? I am worried about my schools revoking my acceptance if I tell them. I will otherwise receive all As in the rest of my classes. The thesis is tied into my graduation requirements now if I want full honors, but I could technically graduate with my degree without it.

I thought it would be helpful if the data sheet were condensed into a poll asking the more important questions about funding. I hope this poll will be helpful for everyone making decisions on acceptances. This isn't meant to be a pissing contest or an exercise in self-flagellation - just the data [knowledge is power and all that]. Notes The data would quickly become rocky if I asked about multiple offers, so please just go with your top choice or most generous offer. Also, if you haven't yet received a funded offer, but are reasonably hopeful about receiving one before April 15th, I would wait it out. Be sure to check your stipend totals against cost-of-living in the school's area when assessing the generosity of the funding. I wanted to add this in, but GradCafe limits polls to 3 questions.

Bump. That sheet needs some more 2015 data points, folks. I posted my less-than-baller funding stats - so can you!

I'm probably going to accept UIUC's offer. I would prefer to live with someone though, so it may be a bit harder for me to find a room. Thankfully, I already know some current grad students that may be able to provide me with some more direction.

I have heard of this explanation before and it may be true for some adcomms, but the reasoning still strikes me as pretty backwards. Even with a master's degree and a few pubs, that's only 1-2 years out of undergrad. That simply doesn't strike me as long enough to set someone in their ways. Plus, most academics continually adapt their focus and techniques (sometimes wildly) over the length of their career. If that isn't set in stone, PhD and loads of pubs in hand, then why would a kid fresh out of school with a few pubs be seen as inflexible? Also - I haven't seen the other side of this yet - but I imagine that I would prefer the most knowledgeable and demonstrably capable student possible over a less qualified one I could better "mould". At least in my UG lab, grad students are given enormous freedom in how they design and oversee experiments - and I'm not talking about crap side projects, but ones under big buck $$$ grants. Especially in a large lab, grads need to be self starters as much as sis possible for a student. It's also just good science to expose yourself to people with opposing viewpoints. I would want to know why a student reading the same research literature as me disagrees on x,y,z topics. It may mean I'm missing something or need to revise my conclusions. And if my procedures are stupid or inefficient, I would want that to be pointed out too. Copy/pasting my ideas and techniques onto a student strikes me as boring and of little merit. I feel like the benefits of having a variety of ideas from different training and backgrounds outweighs the cost.

Okay, then they can scrap the CV on first pass if those are their priorities. Likewise, if they want to make sure smaller schools get due consideration, they can add that back in. Really, the process can be adjusted for each school, but overall goals of less ID info and the process being more open are better than what we have now. We cannot even imagine how much the factors you listed are or are not being taken into account with how subjective and mysterious it is now. I also question whether even deliberate moves to include minorities can override first, implicit impressions. Some schools openly acknowledge a policy that low SES and minority is given special consideration and that's great. For other schools who provide no such info, we can only guess. Besides, at least in the schools I looked at, grad students appeared to be overwhelmingly white and (at least) pseudo-Ivy,so it is debatable how much the current system is helping disadvantaged applicants. If schools are genuinely committed to eliminating bias, transparency is a good first step - especially since establishing clear standards makes them more accountable for their decisions. I also think it's inexcusable for psych departments, which are very well aware of how bias can cloud selection processes even with the best intentions.

Yes, from what I understand, the psych forum post was actually inspired by the history forum one. I am in the same boat for summer funding. None of it is specified.

Um, can you provide some more context? I'm assuming you're talking about rolling admits, right? I'll take a stab at answering your question for now with my own anecdote on why this may be the case. Before I was accepted to UIUC, I considered applying to Brandeis's terminal MA program in late January. The review apps until late March/April, so I thought I could take my sweet time. I kid you not - less than a week after the deadline, my POI was already making decisions. He had already drawn a list of prospectives up and said he would review my application to see if he wanted to add mine to it. Also, a lot of profs assume second-round, post-deadline applicants are using them as a backup. I suspect my Alabama POI believes this to be the case [turned in my app a a month late]; she's wrong, but the damage is done. Don't screw around with deadlines.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, as it differs from school to school. For UIUC, my POI contacted me a full three weeks before my official acceptance and before anyone else heard back. For FSU Criminology, I got my official acceptance via email about two weeks ago and have yet to receive any word from my POI.

Ditto! I completed a common app for summer research programs. I think Texas has such a system for its public universities. I don't know of any that have been implemented nationwide though, which is too bad.

Thanks. If I ever become a faculty member, I really hope I could form a coalition of junior faculty and sympathetic oldsters to create these kinds of standards. I think clear, coherent policies on #10 especially would calm a lot of our anxieties and provide a balm for my deep skepticism of this process. Besides being more fair, combating discrimination and bias helps them select the best applicants anyway.

Maybe unusual - but my main goals would be automation and transparency - making the selection more fair, speeding the process up, and saving uncompetitive applicants time & money. Integrate some kind of survey-esque/Qualtrics-like software that can quickly and neatly divide applicants based on the most relevant stats, such as GPA, GRE, and years of research experience [if most schools have this, they really have no excuse for their slowness]. If sub 3.5 GPAs don't cut the mustard and/or the university has strict GRE score requirements, auto-email all applicants fitting those criteria w/in a week of their submission with a short message explaining just why they were rejected so that they don't reapply next year. (related to the above) Have such spoken and "unspoken" stats published on the admissions website. (related to the above) Release stats for the previous five years of admits. If interviews are required, reject all applicants who are not invited to interview IMMEDIATELY. List whether or not faculty are seeking students on their webpages, preferably 2 month in advance of the application deadline. Indicate in instructions whether students should contact faculty or not; make it clear when individual faculty are responsible for accepting students [uT-Austin is, admittedly, very explicit on this front]. If I were a faculty member, have guidelines for exactly what I would want for a prospective to email me (CV + 1 page research statement, etc.) (related to above) Maintain a separate lab email for this purpose Expunge identifying information like name, race, gender, and undergrad/master's university from adcomm's first read-through materials. Add back in uni information and names only after top 5-10% are chosen based on CVs and SOPs. Publish this exact process as well as any other relevant procedures on the website.

The sarcasm is strong in this one. Incredibly cruel. I would not be surprised if somebody was doing this, judging from the standard operating procedure for several of the schools I applied to [i'm looking at you, NYU and UT-Austin, ya bastards!].