wmplax

why would you do a master's program over your acceptance at cornell?

Still, I have to say that with your stats and just general history with the school, they seem to have lacked a certain human quality in their decision process: in all honesty, if I had seen a qualified applicant try for the second time after being waitlisted the first time (all this information can be gleaned from the file itself, such that I need not have been part of the previous year's adcom to recognize a pattern), and on top of it all said applicant actually has a more tailored and better file, I probably would have said fuck it and sent for an admit. While I think RWBG and Megan provide both reasonable and correct arguments, I'm still struck by the sheer callousness of the system, its ostensibly non-human quality for members who are only human. I wonder how many professors there would have luck, or what their complaints would be, if our roles were reversed; would they expect some leeway, on reasonable normative grounds, given previous efforts and future expectations? Would they make appeals to last year, suggesting that repeated attempts showcase more practiced desires? I think that they would do all of this, and reasonably so. That your file was neglected strikes me not as the process taking its rightful course, but a prime example of a time when the democratic elements of American academia--primarily the feeling that we are all in this together--are eclipsed by more economic standards of admittance. Certainly, departments are free to develop and follow their own guidelines for admission; I'm simply saying that your rejection stands outside any set of criteria I could personally imagine, or see others settling on freely. Of course, this is merely my opinion, and I have no knowledge beyond this of your file or the dynamics that went down at p-town's adcom meetings. However, for whatever it's worth, I have to say that your rejection did strike me as odd and unexpected, and I see in it a much greater trend that I find, in its most unchecked valence, downright unhealthy for any academic system. In any case, I accidentally deleted my post from last night when I went to edit it, but for those on the Princeton waitlist: I will almost certainly be declining my offer there, so there is one more spot available.

What's your interest? I know you're an Africanist, but is there a particular area of Africa that you specialize in?

Do you guys reply to any of your acceptance emails? I feel like a dick as it occurred to me that I haven't replied back saying thanks or, even for my top choice which I'm now in, that I'll probably be attending. At this point, how much communication do you have/is appropriate to have with the schools you've been accepted into?

I would, however, actually like to here more about whatever it is everyone is into at the moment. If this is a political science board, let's at least get a sense of what our future colleagues are interested in pursuing, no?

Ah, I see now--I misunderstood balderdash's response as a somewhat confrontational attack on the other person, who I had thought fielded a meaningful question and was being brushed off with a simply and arrogant "no." It rubbed me the wrong way, especially considering the fragility of tensions as is. To balderdash: clearly, I had misread and I'm sorry--I understood you as making a isolated positive statement and failed to address the overall context.

No, he wasn't taking it into consideration and that is precisely my point: this board is full of broad claims to knowledge of a process that is intrinsically opaque and uniquely experienced by each and every application. For as many minds apply, therego as many different stories as to why, or what, got them accepted or rejected. YOU, nor I, have ANY generalizable knowledge about the system beyond the simple truth as to field the best application YOU can provide given your own skills and interests. The best we can do here, it seems, is simple encouragement (which there is plenty of) with perhaps even some discussion of political science interests (which there is hardly any of). Instead, it seems centered on these absolutely ludicrous predictions that in themselves can only point to a handful of anecdotes to prove their point. I'm saying: for every example you can give, I can field one to the contrary. What this unfortunately makes for is a system that is by nature unknowable in advance. That "the owl of Minerva spreads its wings at dusk" seems to be a pretty accurate summation of the results here. But rather than living with this, the constant need for a very hollow basis of reassurance propagates if not false, then ostensibly narrow, knowledge of a process that has shown to make the most unexpected turns.

Listen, mate, he asks you a question and your response is a strikingly unqualified "No." I see this as unreasonable given the overwhelming contingency of the process and the obviously narrow scope of your own--like anyone else's--range of accurate knowledge. What I'm saying: this does not help, do not do it. Not so much an attack as a sanction.

This is simply getting idiotic. Neither of you know how much GRE's weigh in--it's contingent not only on the department, but on those selected for that year's committee. I've heard that some people couldn't care less about GRE's while you'll occasionally get a nut who thinks its an accurate tool of prediction and should be counted. The fact is: we do not know, so please stop pretending to possess some radiant knowledge about the reception of GRE scores when, even in a rather comprehensive survey of the results, there seems to be little rhyme or reason. Your desire for generality is insane, and would severely disappoint Wittgenstein. If you did have the correct knowledge, then I imagine you would get in wherever you decidedly chose--of course, this is far from reality, and you are left, like us all, to merely speculate.

Sorry--didn't take your statement callously at all. Was just providing an experience outside what I imagine is the norm. My own experience of the GRE has proven little: I've had first-hand experience with students who have received perfect to near-perfect scores only to be dissapointed out of my skull, while I know some students who didn't score as highly but whose imaginative qualities thrust them to the very fore of the discipline. Of course, I've met brilliant people who have done handsomely on the exam--but there simply is no correlate between the two beyond the amount of time and effort you put in to study, as you mentioned. What I think the GRE thus "signals" is what the rest of your application tries to show--that you're serious about committing yourself to an effort that will draw you into the field. In this sense, I think you are correct, and only the extreme values of the data spread will have serious impact on admissions. Last year, I know a student who had perfect scores--he was admitted into top programs long before other students--he attributes this purely to the "shock and awe" value of his scores. Whether he is right or not I cannot say, though TOP score seems to launch you to the top of the pile. As far as my personal history, however, a seemingly terrible score does not seem to be the death-knell of my grad career.

Yes, my experience differs; my own GRE quant score is low enough that I should not be getting in anywhere, and yet I am. I have no idea what weights they assign to what and at which school, though I can certainly say that whoever admitted me looked well and above past mere test scores... Which, by the way, is totally fine by me.

What kind of theory? And are you going to the admit weekend?

What kind of theory? Didn't apply to UMass or anything--just curious.

What kind of theory do you cover?

You're a theory person, correct? If so, what kind of theory do you focus on? And who was your POI at Cornell? Can anyone tell me what Cornell's general reputation in the field is, and in particular their reputation for theory?

What's your subfield? I'm claiming another Cornell admit. Lovely email; 5 years full funding.

I suppose this could be accurate--by the same logic, Yale is out as well. Ironically, I'm heading to work out in Stanford's main gym right now.

Edit: Also, I know for a fact--I spoke with a member of Stanford's adcom last year--that they usually admit somewhere between 20-25 in the hopes of claiming a pool of 15 or so; if the post is accurate, then the vast, vast majority of electable candidates did not come from this board (which, I suppose, is plausible), though I would have imagined at least 1 or 2 more claims here. Strikes me as odd, either way.

Who posted the Stanford info claiming that all calls have been made? The lag between boards contributes much to the tension...

Anyone have any news on Stanford? I saw another post go up claiming a phone call yesterday; though, given the traffic of the board and the number of reports, I would be hard-pressed to believe that Stanford has made all their offers...

What's your subfield and general stats? You seem to be cleaning up everywhere...

Who's claiming these Stanford acceptances?

What's your subfield and interest in said subfield?

And what kind of theory do you pursue?

What kind of theory does your husband work in?