Cogitodoncrien

I need some modscle over here! Edit: sorry, I couldn't stop myself

Care to clarify?

Tell me if I've understood you correctly: you're inferring from the fact that some applicant with a 3.5 GPA and stellar letters and prestigious pedigree was accepted by Harvard that any applicant with a 3.7 GPA has a low chance of being accepted by a worthwhile program?

This is a funny song, but if Kit Fine has written it from his own perspective, then he has a serious case of impostor syndrome (of course, comparing oneself to "the greats" is always a little silly, so I get the self-deprecating humor).

Looking at grad cafe while listening to certain kinds of music makes the experience much more pleasant for me. Throw on some Funkadelic (or Parliament), for instance. Infectious cuts to start you on your interstellar journey that will take away your cares include, but are definitely not limited to, the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgasGeWuYdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZKF4aPFKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAK2j27fwO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASGYZTE2oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyaZoSHoeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeYUXjp_ro Always remember the wise words of the Funkadelic: free your mind and your ass will follow; the kingdom of heaven is within.

Ditto for UM-Ann Arbor.

Thank you, and good luck to you as well.

It definitely seems to be a messy sort of situation, and from the anecdotal evidence that you and others have provided it surely is the case that at least some professors engage in yield protection calculations. I wonder what effect, if any, there would be on the process if there were no PGR to begin with.

Thank you for this helpful and enlightening advice.

Oh boy, your cohort is going to love you.

A rare treat: an internet troll who, in addition to being smug, is also hilarious.

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too). So, what's your evidence that this happens?. Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it! Duke was always the place for me!"). Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer. So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true. Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"? Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances? Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different? Are they different simply by degree? If so, by how much? If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer? One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department. But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions. I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts. Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

I think that's a good way to look at it. From the FAQ page, the living wage ratio is determined by dividing the stipend amount by the living wage amount (which they get from the MIT published "Poverty In America Living Wage Calculator"). So, any LWR that is 1 is equal to the living wage for that city, any LWR that is above 1 is above the living wage for that city, etc.

You can see some spotty reporting of stipends for various programs from various years on this site: http://www.phdstipends.com/results The results are self-reported and most lack information about whether the stipend is the normal package given to all admitted students or whether it includes fellowships.

A public university judged to have the same standards for and provide the same quality of education as prestigious Ivy League universities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy