1|]010ls10o

What did you guys say for these questions? I had a PI (the person I applied to) say she reserved the second interview just for all my questions. I tried asking her to ask me questions, but she insisted on having me ask her questions. The first two interviews I had with her (phone, then 1st in-person) were all conversational. Second wasn't natural at all. Did you guys just go down a list of questions that were posted here? What did you guys say for strengths/weaknesses? (preferably for people who were accepted to programs)

A distinguished professor asked where I applied to, and whether I was invited. A grad student from a different school did, too. Asked if I was invited to 'a lot' of schools. Be prepared to justify your other applications, and hopefully you have a good response if you weren't invited to many places.

I was in an alternate dimension, because this ain't it chief

Yeah. Numbers aren’t great predictors. I was just stunned by the number of acceptances 9/15 with universally average scores. Before psych faculty even look at your app, the school removes people from the pile. If someone complimented your fire LORs, that probably helped at step 2 (step 1 is trimming the pool of applicants by the numbers entered into the application form). Faculty members have told me that they sometimes look at applications they otherwise would not have looked at (ones cut by step 1) if they knew one of the recommenders, or knew you worked for a well known researcher, or if you reached out to them prior to the cycle. So, yes, “good SOP, good LORs, and research fit” are important. But did you have any connections or did you network with the POIs? This is a critically understated aspect of the *application* process that is in line with what all of us agree with — including my post on this page from Friday — that numbers aren’t everything.

"Acting like it’s a number games is very wrong. “Stats” get you through the door but it’s your interviewing skills and general likability that actually gets you offers. " Lol, I've said basically this in my previous post a day ago. I'm aware it's not just stats. This person's # of interviews makes that very obvious. Must've been an amazing SOP. I'm aware it isn't all stats, hence my question of what made the person stand out during the materials/invite process. This sounds most likely, and is a good guess to why the person was invited to the interviews (i.e., aspects before interviewing skills and general likability play a role)

Do you mind listing your institutions (2 degrees, research experience) and also the schools you applied to? Or minimally, the prestige/reputation of the PIs you worked with or of the programs? How much networking you did beforehand? I’m shocked you had 9 interviews with those scores. Many schools would’ve cut you round 1. If you managed to be invited so many times, there hypothetically should be something excellent with your application, so what made you stand out?

You're going to have a bad time if you think that it's about metrics. They'll help, but not as much as you think unless you had basically nothing. Given that you had 6 interviews, it's not your metrics. I have excellent metrics and experience, but...yeah. It's my personality. Or my writing. Or maybe I'm ugly, hahaha. It's good to work on it, but don't think that'll be the formula to get you into a program.

Nothing yet. I was told they would meet and notify even earlier.

Can you tell us more?

Yeah. Ton of reasons. Splitting hairs. It's difficult to prove. I just hope you realize 'personality fit' is largely determined by race/ethnicity and culture. And it's clear what type of 'personality' is desirable.

Same. Doesn't matter how well you think it went. All of my interviews went extremely well. You're pre-ranked and there's often very little you can do to jump ranks unless you're charming af and your swagger is on a hundred thousand trillion

I wrote a SOP that two grad students at elite phd programs said was exceptional. My letter writer read it and thought it was complete trash conceptually and wanted me to rewrite it completely. He was at a loss for words for how bad it was, and had almost no feedback to offer because it didnt fit his prototype of what a SOP should be. He nonetheless wrote a strong letter about how great I was as an employee/researcher. Still got invited to interview at great programs, and other faculty members thought I wrote extremely well -- that my SOP 'cLeArLy sToOd oUt' and that my prose 'JuMpeD aT thEm' My point is that not all people will agree with whether a SOP is good. It can still be good. Just in a different way.

That stuff happens all the time. Acceptances speak louder than invitations -- even if they claim to have a diversity initiative, just look at grad student demographics. This entire field, higher-tier programs especially, is dominated by white people who come from elite institutions. Even the POC generally have great educations or well off parents. That said, there's no good proof of discrimination, just admitted student demographics. Anyone sending in an application gives admissions councils so many areas they can disqualify you for. Their favorite and first one to offer is usually, 'other applicants have slightly better research fit' -- lol, as though that wasn't apparent in the CV + personal statement.

x

Very important from what I've heard/read. My impression is that most TT positions in 'good' universities are taken by graduates from 'better' universities. E.g., if you want to teach at a top 50 school, you better graduate from a top 10 school. Etc. Hoping someone can provide more detail than what I'm saying, because I'm interested too.