milestones13

The strong financial earning years for successful (but not super successful actors) is really short lived compared to other highly successful people in other fields. The tendency is to think of anyone with a recognizable name in showbusiness as having more money than Croesus, but there are a few things to consider: One, large gaps in employment and two, the money swiped off the top of their earnings. Actors do splashy things to keep themselves in the spotlight but they're often not getting paid much for that. They also sometimes do pet projects that make them little money or a cool cameo for a movie or tv that sets the web ablaze for little money. The other things is, the hand in their wallet -- agents, money managers, personal managers, lawyers, pr people, taxes. The reality is that they only bring in 30-40% of what they gross. I am not saying anyone should cry for actors who make 5 million a year, but understand that translates into 2 million after they're pillaged by business people. Compare a 35 year old actor to a 35 year old junior partner at a law firm and it is not hard to see which one is on the way up and one is on the way down, even if at this point they are basically making the same amount after taxes. At 50, most actors are pretty much done, guest-spotting and reality-showing or even soaping back to their roots when they were first trying to break in. Whereas the junior, now senior partner at a law firm, has increased their earning power and can maintain this level of earnings for at least another 15 maybe 20 years, year in year out. No fame and no glamour and public adulation attached -- but then, no years of not getting a pilot picked up and doing lame straight-to-video movies, either. The life of the aging actor is not only fiscally depressing for all those involved (unless you're an outlier, Jack Nicholson say), it's also often empty as well. Projects that are offered really begin to suck any prior pride or vanity from earlier in their career -- this downward swing and attendant unraveling becomes tabloid fodder for the masses. But they can eke out a million here and there, especially if XY fading celeb is willing to parody oneself based on what the masses remember about the one or two hits they may have had. Such a being has morphed into walking, repackaged garbage.

Money managers treat actors like children and for good reason -- actors get used to a style of life they will, in all great probability, not be able to sustain as they move into middle age. Obviously, it is worse for actresses: the vast majority of female screen thesps need to get out of Hollywood by the time they reach 30. Generally, it seems actresses are much savvier than are male actors about the ticking bomb that is their acting career -- perhaps because this ticking coincides with their time-to-start-a-family biological time clock that men lack. Worth noting too: Franco is not a major star (no way an island buying Nicholoas Cage) and it seems he simply is following a career path that is natural to him, the sort of thing that Ethan Hawke might have done 10 years ago (sans Uma and the kids). While there is most likely an ego-trip component to Franco's decision to go to Yale (adding prestige to rank fame), it doesn't seem to be borne out of complete frivolousness but of internal motivation to work on a project, just like anyone else might have. I think if he wanted to prestige of the Yale name alone, why not go to Yale drama school (tied into some other program at Yale, so as to inject interdisciplinary flair) for some histrionic copulation?

The strong financial earning years for successful (but not super successful actors) is really short lived compared to other highly successful people in other fields. The tendency is to think of anyone with a recognizable name in showbusiness as having more money than Croesus, but there are a few things to consider: One, large gaps in employment and two, the money swiped off the top of their earnings. Actors do splashy things to keep themselves in the spotlight but they're often not getting paid much for that. They also sometimes do pet projects that make them little money or a cool cameo for a movie or tv that sets the web ablaze for little money. The other things is, the hand in their wallet -- agents, money managers, personal managers, lawyers, pr people, taxes. The reality is that they only bring in 30-40% of what they gross. I am not saying anyone should cry for actors who make 5 million a year, but understand that translates into 2 million after they're pillaged by business people. Compare a 35 year old actor to a 35 year old junior partner at a law firm and it is not hard to see which one is on the way up and one is on the way down, even if at this point they are basically making the same amount after taxes. At 50, most actors are pretty much done, guest-spotting and reality-showing or even soaping back to their roots when they were first trying to break in. Whereas the junior, now senior partner at a law firm, has increased their earning power and can maintain this level of earnings for at least another 15 maybe 20 years, year in year out. No fame and no glamour and public adulation attached -- but then, no years of not getting a pilot picked up and doing lame straight-to-video movies, either. The life of the aging actor is not only fiscally depressing for all those involved (unless you're an outlier, Jack Nicholson say), it's also often empty as well. Projects that are offered really begin to suck any prior pride or vanity from earlier in their career -- this downward swing and attendant unraveling becomes tabloid fodder for the masses. But they can eke out a million here and there, especially if XY fading celeb is willing to parody oneself based on what the masses remember about the one or two hits they may have had. Such a being has morphed into walking, repackaged garbage.

Money managers treat actors like children and for good reason -- actors get used to a style of life they will, in all great probability, not be able to sustain as they move into middle age. Obviously, it is worse for actresses: the vast majority of female screen thesps need to get out of Hollywood by the time they reach 30. Generally, it seems actresses are much savvier than are male actors about the ticking bomb that is their acting career -- perhaps because this ticking coincides with their time-to-start-a-family biological time clock that men lack. Worth noting too: Franco is not a major star (no way an island buying Nicholoas Cage) and it seems he simply is following a career path that is natural to him, the sort of thing that Ethan Hawke might have done 10 years ago (sans Uma and the kids). While there is most likely an ego-trip component to Franco's decision to go to Yale (adding prestige to rank fame), it doesn't seem to be borne out of complete frivolousness but of internal motivation to work on a project, just like anyone else might have. I think if he wanted to prestige of the Yale name alone, why not go to Yale drama school (tied into some other program at Yale, so as to inject interdisciplinary flair) for some histrionic copulation?

The strong financial earning years for successful (but not super successful actors) is really short lived compared to other highly successful people in other fields. The tendency is to think of anyone with a recognizable name in showbusiness as having more money than Croesus, but there are a few things to consider: One, large gaps in employment and two, the money swiped off the top of their earnings. Actors do splashy things to keep themselves in the spotlight but they're often not getting paid much for that. They also sometimes do pet projects that make them little money or a cool cameo for a movie or tv that sets the web ablaze for little money. The other things is, the hand in their wallet -- agents, money managers, personal managers, lawyers, pr people, taxes. The reality is that they only bring in 30-40% of what they gross. I am not saying anyone should cry for actors who make 5 million a year, but understand that translates into 2 million after they're pillaged by business people. Compare a 35 year old actor to a 35 year old junior partner at a law firm and it is not hard to see which one is on the way up and one is on the way down, even if at this point they are basically making the same amount after taxes. At 50, most actors are pretty much done, guest-spotting and reality-showing or even soaping back to their roots when they were first trying to break in. Whereas the junior, now senior partner at a law firm, has increased their earning power and can maintain this level of earnings for at least another 15 maybe 20 years, year in year out. No fame and no glamour and public adulation attached -- but then, no years of not getting a pilot picked up and doing lame straight-to-video movies, either. The life of the aging actor is not only fiscally depressing for all those involved (unless you're an outlier, Jack Nicholson say), it's also often empty as well. Projects that are offered really begin to suck any prior pride or vanity from earlier in their career -- this downward swing and attendant unraveling becomes tabloid fodder for the masses. But they can eke out a million here and there, especially if XY fading celeb is willing to parody oneself based on what the masses remember about the one or two hits they may have had. Such a being has morphed into walking, repackaged garbage.

Money managers treat actors like children and for good reason -- actors get used to a style of life they will, in all great probability, not be able to sustain as they move into middle age. Obviously, it is worse for actresses: the vast majority of female screen thesps need to get out of Hollywood by the time they reach 30. Generally, it seems actresses are much savvier than are male actors about the ticking bomb that is their acting career -- perhaps because this ticking coincides with their time-to-start-a-family biological time clock that men lack. Worth noting too: Franco is not a major star (no way an island buying Nicholoas Cage) and it seems he simply is following a career path that is natural to him, the sort of thing that Ethan Hawke might have done 10 years ago (sans Uma and the kids). While there is most likely an ego-trip component to Franco's decision to go to Yale (adding prestige to rank fame), it doesn't seem to be borne out of complete frivolousness but of internal motivation to work on a project, just like anyone else might have. I think if he wanted to prestige of the Yale name alone, why not go to Yale drama school (tied into some other program at Yale, so as to inject interdisciplinary flair) for some histrionic copulation?

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist or any sort of expert on the brain, just a dude on the internet. I'm in my 30's, haven't taken the GRE yet (taking it in August) and so while I may not resolve your ambiguities on this matter, Doctor F, perhaps I can be of some help...even if I fall short of performing "demonstrations magical."

Your first question: what does the quantitative test measure? It measures executive functioning mostly -- mainly working memory. Working memory is the ability to hold multiple things in mind while doing a task and still being able to sequence/manipulate information you're holding in your short term mental storage bin before it gets lost forever. Psychologists have found that working memory is very closely linked to fluid intelligence (which is the ability to draw out distinctions between items on the fly, usually inductively -- essentially pattern recognition ability). So, yes, quant does tap both of these -- especially executive functioning because solving any multistep problems invariably involves working memory. To a lesser extent, quant measures processing speed -- the ability to do a bit of mental math without using pen and paper. This helps also. Quant also very much measures crystallized intelligence -- area of a circle (easy) the formula for permutations (less easy) and the steps to solve a problem, which come about more by practice than any magical noetic prowess. Unlike the verbal section though the quant section does not correlate well with standard intelligence tests -- fluid or crystallized, and is largely content driven (high school math review test)...still, it's tricky. ETS seems to want to design it as an IQ test...."ha, ha, got you. X can also be negative...Answer is D. Sorry, dumb ass!"But the trick element is something the academic tests like SAT and GRE have invented...and this is not a measurement of fluid intellingece or executive functions but just seems to be an amorphous gauge of how "sharp" the test taker is or what a sucker they are. Altogether risible stuff, imo.

But, that's just a critique of the test. Back to your goal. Yeah, working memory and fluid intelligence peak in the 20's -- which is why a smartass twentysomething can wake up hung over and go to the testing ctr and knock out 1400 or 1500...this gets harder for the 30+ somethings to do. Quant scores on the GRE have been shown to go down with age while verbal tends to stay constant -- the reason for this might be executive functions and, to a lesser extent, fluid intelligence. But it may also be because high level language is used more than quantitative skills for educated people who have been out of college for a while. I don't know enough to say what the exact reason is...but, I would advise you to get to work on improving your working memory. This is absolutely possible to do now. It's not a panacea or any sort of replacement for knowledge...but sharpening your working memory will help your focus to work through any problems, writing an argument, whatever. High levels of working memory will lead to better performance in pretty much everything that involves high level mental focus. The task to practice is called Dual N Back, which has been shown to increase both working memory and fluid intelligence in college students (which is unprecedented). There are many free installments you can play. Here are a few (I won't favor one over the other but will let you choose. Advise you to do research on these before you pick what I offer or any versions you can find on your own -- there are more).

Here: http://www.soakyourhead.com/

Here: http://cognitivefun.net/

Here: http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

The other thing I would recommend is taking creatine...which is scientifically proven to boost mental performance (although it's typically associated with physical performance).

http://rspb.royalsoc.../1529/2147.long

You know the rest. Eat a good diet, sleep, protein, yada yada....what I suggest are two things you might not know. The caveat is that even though these two brain boosting methods have been documented in respected scientific journals (one of which was double blind placebo), they are not considered mainstream interventions yet...only on the vanguard...so, take it as thou whilst.

And yes, from the arcane knowledge I've derived on the matter, there is indeed great hope for you to land in the upper 700's for quant -- 800 is within your ken! But, as you know Faustus, none of what I suggest is a magical substitute for the sweat of study itself. For that, you have resources far greater than what I can offer (exeunt stage left).

Actually, it depends on the aspect of intelligence. There are two well established types of intelligence -- fluid and crystallized. The verbal section of the GRE is lagely a measurement of crystallized intelligence (except for analogies that also require fluid intelligence). Crystallized intelligence can be thought of as the knowledge and skills that have been accrued throughout a life time whereas fluid intelligence is how well one solves novel problems independent of learned info. A test of the latter would be Raven's progressive matrices. The two, taken together, are largely what makes up a person's functioning intelligence. Fluid intelligence typically declines with age and crystallized intelligence can grow conintually (contingent on one's education). Vocabulary testing is known to be good test of crystallized intelligence (though it's not a good measure of fluid intelligence). So, the guides omit this information mainly because they don't want to get into it and confuse people. ETS and the test companies know what the deal is regarding this and are likely clear about what it is they want to test....ETS, though while publicly claiming the GRE is not an IQ test, also informs test takers on their website that their score will not likely move much from one test to the next (tacitly indicating one's IQ is what it is and so performance is not going to improve substantially. They even warn test takers their scores might go down).

This is hardly the case across the board, obviously. ETS is making assumptions based on the normal/vanilla applicant. Mainly because they're testing crystallized intelligence this allows a non math person to improve their quant score 300 points and a word-cramming non native speaker can do the same on the verbal side. ETS makes the assumption that intellectual limitations have been hit by all equally in preparing for the test (but obvously there is huge variation in how long people prepare for it -- some don't prepare at all while others take a year to prepare). ETS also assumes that, given the test taking population being what it is (college en route to grad school), fluid intelligence has already largely been invested in the areas tested (verbal and quant) so that they believe the GRE will also indirectly test previous fluid as well as crystallized ability. This is probably why ETS maintains test scores should remain static or reliable (because fluid intelligence is traditionally thought to be static or fixed) from one test to the next. While I'm sure they are armed with the numbers in order to support this as true, it's not true for the high achieving, the underachieving, the non native speaker, and sundry other anomolous test takers out there (anomolies, at least, in ETS's world).

In your case, though, your move to an 800 V over those years is a reflection of intelligence investment theory, which is normal and even expected for a highly intelligent, curious, and educated person...though 800 is an obviously extremely rare/high score to be reached.

"once you get out of the top-20, you start getting a lot more students who, as those on here have noted, have complex autobiographies. some simply can't move outside the county/region (meaning they'll probably end up at a CC). some never intended to get a job with their ph.d. some will move out of country and never be heard from again. some are well into their 40's when they entered grad school."

So, you're saying that those with complex biographies ("mature students") are more likely to be discriminated against not only in the application process for Ph.D but also in searching for a job? If so, then, maybe this isn't discrimination per se but perhaps easily rationalized as "preference" for a certain age range...lol.

"the folks in my program who fit the model of the average top-20 grad (under 34 when they get the ph.d., published, willing to do a national search, etc.) tend to get pretty good jobs. those who don't have fewer options"

Horror upon horror: you're saying the top 20's tend to discriminate on age more than unranked schools who are less concerned about maintaining a high placement rate?

It may seem that way and you're probably hitting on some realities in your analysis, but these realities have to be evaluated more closely...I'll offer my analysis, which is by no means complete, and hopefully others more knowledgable can add to it.

I imagine that mature candidates who are close to publlishing level are just as a appealing (probably more appealing) than those younger candidates who are promising but still far off from publishing level. I imagine this is true no matter what the school's US News ranking may be (Yale or Some State U). However, given two candiates whose writing samples show a similar level of development, clearly it would make sense to invest in the 25 year old over the 45 year old. However, if the 45 year old shows evidence (in their sop/writing sample) that they're already producing great work, then it is easier to throw the 25 year old back in the water. I'm not arguing that schools have a special place in their heart for "mature students" but they all want to glorify their programs, and what better way to do that than admit someone who is polished over an applicant who needs to be nurtured?

Another thing to consider is this: A lot of universities, and this is probably even more true for the big name ivy league institutions, get a lot of application from people going through a mid life change, who now "want to go to graduate school at..." These applicants have a B.A.. from 20 years ago, maybe in English, maybe in Biochemistry, but they've always loved English. Let's say they've got great test scores and undergrad GPA's...but they don't have a writing sample, so they have to come up with one or rewrite a term paper on Wordsworth from eons ago. They get recs from professors who reply to their requests with a "Yes, of course I remember you fondly." The recs that get written by these profs are indeed fondly boilerplate -- the letter devised from template that sits in a folder titled "recommendation letter from students who I don't recall." So, this is a student with great GRE scores, great GPA's, maybe decent writing sample and very impersonal recs (whether from celebrity profs on unknown profs, doesn't matter). This candidate will struggle to get into a top 20. What they'll likely end up doing is cry age discrimination -- but really what killed their application is dreamy SOP's ("When I first read Tennyson at age 5, I knew that..."), or LOR's from profs who have lost excitement about them even if that student showed exceptional promise several decades ago.

Here I'm making a case for older applilcants with strong numbers, but then there are the mid lifers applying even without strong numbers in addition to all the problems associated with being out of academia for a long time while trying to get back in. It helps a lot to have some fairly recent rigorous work that can be shown in the sample' it's uphill unless this person has some professor guiding them...that is, it's harder for someone out of academia to put together a polished academic writing sample than it is for a younger applicant who is closer to the process of grinding out revisions.

It may be programs outside the top 20 will be more likely to absorb those candidates with strong numbers who have unfocused SOP'S and undeveloped samples...and the one's with poor numbers may not get in anywhere. The main advantage younger applicants have is that they are fresh in the minds of their professors, and ergo they get strong 'alive' LOR's. But then, if an older applicant has been active, has an MA or did other relevant course work, has a strong sample and specific idea about why they want to get a Doctorate in Engllish, then they're on equal footing with someone in their twenties and maybe even with a slight advantage, given accrual of wisdom and life experience. But the older applicant needs to show off their focus which might not happen if this older candidate mistakenly thinks that GPA/GRE's are what will make or break them -- a logical, but wrong assumption.

So, this is to say: I don't think top programs are akin to soap operas obsessed with casting for youth. Obviously, this was not what you meant to say, but wanted to look closer at some of the realities behind the numbers...this is a bit off topic, but relevant to the young and old applicants here (soul age, and number of earthly incarnations notwithstanding ;-).

"once you get out of the top-20, you start getting a lot more students who, as those on here have noted, have complex autobiographies. some simply can't move outside the county/region (meaning they'll probably end up at a CC). some never intended to get a job with their ph.d. some will move out of country and never be heard from again. some are well into their 40's when they entered grad school."

So, you're saying that those with complex biographies ("mature students") are more likely to be discriminated against not only in the application process for Ph.D but also in searching for a job? If so, then, maybe this isn't discrimination per se but perhaps easily rationalized as "preference" for a certain age range...lol.

"the folks in my program who fit the model of the average top-20 grad (under 34 when they get the ph.d., published, willing to do a national search, etc.) tend to get pretty good jobs. those who don't have fewer options"

Horror upon horror: you're saying the top 20's tend to discriminate on age more than unranked schools who are less concerned about maintaining a high placement rate?

It may seem that way and you're probably hitting on some realities in your analysis, but these realities have to be evaluated more closely...I'll offer my analysis, which is by no means complete, and hopefully others more knowledgable can add to it.

I imagine that mature candidates who are close to publlishing level are just as a appealing (probably more appealing) than those younger candidates who are promising but still far off from publishing level. I imagine this is true no matter what the school's US News ranking may be (Yale or Some State U). However, given two candiates whose writing samples show a similar level of development, clearly it would make sense to invest in the 25 year old over the 45 year old. However, if the 45 year old shows evidence (in their sop/writing sample) that they're already producing great work, then it is easier to throw the 25 year old back in the water. I'm not arguing that schools have a special place in their heart for "mature students" but they all want to glorify their programs, and what better way to do that than admit someone who is polished over an applicant who needs to be nurtured?

Another thing to consider is this: A lot of universities, and this is probably even more true for the big name ivy league institutions, get a lot of application from people going through a mid life change, who now "want to go to graduate school at..." These applicants have a B.A.. from 20 years ago, maybe in English, maybe in Biochemistry, but they've always loved English. Let's say they've got great test scores and undergrad GPA's...but they don't have a writing sample, so they have to come up with one or rewrite a term paper on Wordsworth from eons ago. They get recs from professors who reply to their requests with a "Yes, of course I remember you fondly." The recs that get written by these profs are indeed fondly boilerplate -- the letter devised from template that sits in a folder titled "recommendation letter from students who I don't recall." So, this is a student with great GRE scores, great GPA's, maybe decent writing sample and very impersonal recs (whether from celebrity profs on unknown profs, doesn't matter). This candidate will struggle to get into a top 20. What they'll likely end up doing is cry age discrimination -- but really what killed their application is dreamy SOP's ("When I first read Tennyson at age 5, I knew that..."), or LOR's from profs who have lost excitement about them even if that student showed exceptional promise several decades ago.

Here I'm making a case for older applilcants with strong numbers, but then there are the mid lifers applying even without strong numbers in addition to all the problems associated with being out of academia for a long time while trying to get back in. It helps a lot to have some fairly recent rigorous work that can be shown in the sample' it's uphill unless this person has some professor guiding them...that is, it's harder for someone out of academia to put together a polished academic writing sample than it is for a younger applicant who is closer to the process of grinding out revisions.

It may be programs outside the top 20 will be more likely to absorb those candidates with strong numbers who have unfocused SOP'S and undeveloped samples...and the one's with poor numbers may not get in anywhere. The main advantage younger applicants have is that they are fresh in the minds of their professors, and ergo they get strong 'alive' LOR's. But then, if an older applicant has been active, has an MA or did other relevant course work, has a strong sample and specific idea about why they want to get a Doctorate in Engllish, then they're on equal footing with someone in their twenties and maybe even with a slight advantage, given accrual of wisdom and life experience. But the older applicant needs to show off their focus which might not happen if this older candidate mistakenly thinks that GPA/GRE's are what will make or break them -- a logical, but wrong assumption.

So, this is to say: I don't think top programs are akin to soap operas obsessed with casting for youth. Obviously, this was not what you meant to say, but wanted to look closer at some of the realities behind the numbers...this is a bit off topic, but relevant to the young and old applicants here (soul age, and number of earthly incarnations notwithstanding ;-).

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives.

One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant.

My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application.

At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this:

3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..."

Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement).

Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar:

Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused."

CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky."

CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here."

CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X."

CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y."

CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X."

(Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.)

In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS.

Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing.

CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further.

CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!"

CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see."

CM#1: "Oh...well."

CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly."

CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --"

CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!"

CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives.

One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant.

My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application.

At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this:

3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..."

Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement).

Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar:

Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused."

CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky."

CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here."

CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X."

CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y."

CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X."

(Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.)

In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS.

Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing.

CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further.

CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!"

CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see."

CM#1: "Oh...well."

CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly."

CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --"

CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!"

CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives.

One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant.

My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application.

At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this:

3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..."

Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement).

Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar:

Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused."

CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky."

CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here."

CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X."

CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y."

CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X."

(Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.)

In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS.

Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing.

CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further.

CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!"

CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see."

CM#1: "Oh...well."

CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly."

CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --"

CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!"

CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives.

One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant.

My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application.

At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this:

3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..."

Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement).

Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar:

Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused."

CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky."

CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here."

CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X."

CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y."

CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X."

(Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.)

In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS.

Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing.

CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further.

CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!"

CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see."

CM#1: "Oh...well."

CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly."

CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --"

CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!"

CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."