WorldPeaceMaker2010

No, i would not do this until after the first week of march. It's not uncommon for many schools to release that late.

I got into the first three of those. Let me know if you need help this cycle

Acceptances you had: UCONN, Albany, Umass Amherst
Research Area: Women and Children issues, Middle East, Military Families 
Final Choice: Umass
Reason: I really liked the faculty there. The drive wasn't horrible (unlike Albany), and it was a top 30 program (unlike UCONN). 

In the end the real choices were UCONN, Albany, and Umass Amherst.
 
I'll be with Umass
 
 

Acceptances you had: UCONN, Albany, Umass Amherst
Research Area: Women and Children issues, Middle East, Military Families 
Final Choice: Umass
Reason: I really liked the faculty there. The drive wasn't horrible (unlike Albany), and it was a top 30 program (unlike UCONN). 

In the end the real choices were UCONN, Albany, and Umass Amherst.
 
I'll be with Umass
 
 

I finally got all my answers yesterday. Today I am accepting and declining

Acceptances you had: UCONN, Albany, Umass Amherst
Research Area: Women and Children issues, Middle East, Military Families 
Final Choice: Umass
Reason: I really liked the faculty there. The drive wasn't horrible (unlike Albany), and it was a top 30 program (unlike UCONN). 

I finally got all my answers yesterday. Today I am accepting and declining

In the end the real choices were UCONN, Albany, and Umass Amherst.
 
I'll be with Umass
 
 

Acceptances you had: UCONN, Albany, Umass Amherst
Research Area: Women and Children issues, Middle East, Military Families 
Final Choice: Umass
Reason: I really liked the faculty there. The drive wasn't horrible (unlike Albany), and it was a top 30 program (unlike UCONN). 

IDK, but I was accepted there, and will likely be declining in about 2 weeks, once I finish my other visits. 

Hi Guys!
 
Thought it would be nice to have a thread of people actually listing where they've decided on once they accept an offer. We may even find our future classmates in here!
 
So, once you've accepted an offer, fill this out for in there!
 
Acceptances you had:
Research Area:
Final Choice:
Reason:

Hi Guys!
 
Thought it would be nice to have a thread of people actually listing where they've decided on once they accept an offer. We may even find our future classmates in here!
 
So, once you've accepted an offer, fill this out for in there!
 
Acceptances you had:
Research Area:
Final Choice:
Reason:

I was also thinking this as well.... NYU hasn't been without some turnover either. 

Oh that would be a good program! If your next on the waitlist  it very well could happen esp after the April 15th deadline. 
I got off the Umass Amherst waitlist, so it does happen
 
 
 
 
 
Sidenote: I got a rejection at Northeastern (Poli Sci) which was a HUGE surprise since I had gone to a two day event they invited me to... and when I spoke really expensively will my POI there he basically had eluded to admission being more of a formality at this point.... and had even started talking offers of increasing the funding to match other offers I have. Apparently the old line rings true that nothing is real till it's on paper...
 
I also just got an email from ALbany now where I had already been accepted but waitlisted on funding saying I'm now near the top of that wait list and they think some will be opening up soon.

Hi Guys!
 
Thought it would be nice to have a thread of people actually listing where they've decided on once they accept an offer. We may even find our future classmates in here!
 
So, once you've accepted an offer, fill this out for in there!
 
Acceptances you had:
Research Area:
Final Choice:
Reason:

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!
(thanks to whoever declined!)

Hi Guys!
 
Thought it would be nice to have a thread of people actually listing where they've decided on once they accept an offer. We may even find our future classmates in here!
 
So, once you've accepted an offer, fill this out for in there!
 
Acceptances you had:
Research Area:
Final Choice:
Reason:

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 
If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.
Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 
A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 
 
Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.
 
it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.
As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.
* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 
If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.
Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 
A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 
 
Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.
 
it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.
As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.
* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 
If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.
Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 
A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 
 
Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.
 
it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.
As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.
* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!
(thanks to whoever declined!)

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 
If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.
Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 
A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 
 
Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.
 
it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.
As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.
* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 
If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.
Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 
A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 
 
Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.
 
it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.
As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.
* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that.