The way they accept people in linguistics PhD programs is frankly incomprehensibly different from how they accept people in other fields like economics, physics, math, etc. In other fields, the factors they consider are whether:
1. You can handle graduate-level coursework.
2. You can do original independent research.
3. You have good fit.
Consider my application:
1. Well-written SOP (I went over it with a professor)
2. Original and technical writing sample in theoretical syntax (I try to reduce all of control theory to Agreement by using theta-roles as features such as in Hornstein 1999). This shows I can do original independent research.
3. I'm applying from a top linguistics school as an undergraduate.
4. I took the first and second semester PhD-level courses in syntax as an undergraduate.
5. I took 12 graduate-level courses as an undergraduate, showing I can easily handle graduate-level coursework.
6. I graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.
And I'm also pretty sure I had good fit with the places I applied to, except UCLA, which I didn't think was a very good fit and I would probably get rejected from. Interestingly, I got rejected from every linguistics PhD program except for a waitlist at UCLA. I've been told that this is weird in other fields: if you're getting a waitlist at a top program, you shouldn't usually be getting rejected from everywhere else you apply to.
If I had applied to schools in other fields, I have been told that I likely would have gotten at least one outright acceptance from a top school, and done much better. Fortunately, I have the chance to start a top cognitive science PhD program next semester instead of a linguistics program, and I can move fields, which I will likely be doing. I don't think I could get employed as a linguist in the future if linguists don't care much about hard work.
