TroyBarnes

I am well aware that test-taking ability as you seem to define it, is not the most important indicator of research ability. Your statement about those with learning conditions systematically underperforming is valid for those taking highly structured time pressured exams with closed ended problems, designed to be evaluated on a strict set of standards; there are plenty of studies about it. Nowhere did I suggest people should be evaluated on such exams, though today it very much is at the undergraduate level. One method for examination is in grant writing/fundraising, which should be a key skill of a researcher. In one of the programs in bioengineering, their qualifying exam consisted of writing a grant proposal in a simulated environment over a semester. The students were then evaluated on how well they were able to convey their ideas, and some could not proceed with the program. This would be one example of a potential "exam." Regardless of learning conditions, poor communication skills can only hurt. Further, rec letters, GRE, and GPA are one of the biggest factors in admissions already, Typically, faculty prefer to write for students who perform well in their courses (scored well in coursework and made a good impression) - granted I have seen rare occasions when faculty write for poorly performing students (made a good impression). By your logic, do you suggest to remove all metrics based on testing? After all, those with the learning conditions you listed are at a disadvantage already in the current system. My proposed exam strategy, though ill-defined, is not restricted to exams in your narrow definition, and it is ultimately up to the discretion of the university on the content of the exams. Testing in the traditional sense is never a good way to assess research ability, and this is well known fact. Gradcafe is an online forum, where people may express ideas in an informal manner, and should never qualify as evidence for research ability. Your inability to discriminate where people state opinions and where research capability is demonstrated, as well as your amiss ad hominem statement about my research ability is highly uncharacteristic of a professional let alone successful researcher. You're also missing the point too. stemstudent12345 rightly understood it to be a meritocracy based system. Adcoms trying to predict whether students will be successful the way it is done today, is subject to a lot of bias, e.g. being a certain race may cause certain members in the adcoms to view your application more favorably/unfavorably. Using your model analogy, what good is a model that evaluates covariates with a bias? I do not suggest throwing away all covariates, but replacing them with ones that are less subject to bias, and more indicative of merit. Exams take on many forms, and each one should be designed to indicate a student's research potential and likelihood for success, which should be determined by the universities and exam committees themselves. And I've acknowledged that there are resource constraints making this infeasible.

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries) 2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education) This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper. And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather. This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled.

What makes a department "good." Is it the students who graduate and go on to do impactful things? Or is it the faculty there - then in schools where there are a lot of junior faculty, or younger departments, do they have a chance to rise in the rankings?

Hey @BioStatKid, I was at the recruitment day too. I remember there was an applicant who asked a lot of questions about deadlines and when to expect to hear back. I remember the faculty saying it would be one to two weeks. trust me, i am on edge too, its only Tuesday but it feels like forever. I think at this point, no news is good news? Some of my friends in other depts in their respective programs received an email from the school itself rather than from faculty, so they might need time to process paperwork even after adcoms decide on candidates, though im not sure if thats that case for every department. BTW, mind if we dm? I'm curious about your interview experience at brown.

Could my PI in my PhD program take note of a particularly low grade on my transcript, and reach out to the professor who taught the course to inquire what happened? I wasn't on the best terms with the undergraduate professor, and I was quite unprofessional. I took this course about four years years ago, and I have learned from my ways since then. I am at a different but equally reputable institution. While is a different field, there can be some interdisciplinary overlap. Is there any legal precedence protecting my information from being shared in this manner? Would the professor remember me? Would my PI bother reaching out?

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking the equation would look something like that. After all, if you max out your scores and GPA, you still would not achieve P(accept) = 1. The only way to achieve P=1 is if rec letters >= 0.97 by your model. I've also been told that 0.33 is the highest any applicant can expect for grad admissions; a stat professor and I were basically evaluating the chance I get into at least 1 program. And I suppose the bias term(s) would pool in things like international/domestic applicant, URM/non URM, prestige of previous institutions etc. Anyway, thanks for your perspective. Application cycles have always made me nervous since high school days.

I'm a long time lurker on the forums. I often see advice, which is to find which departments that have students who have similar profiles as myself. While that advice makes sense to me, it does seem like there is a high level of variability. I've seen someone with a 3.1 GPA and no research experience, make it into several top stats departments, and they stated that their rec letters made their application. I've also seen straight A students with glowing letters, strong math prep, and very optimistic opinions on gradcafe, get rejected from top programs. Additionally, I've seen applicants get rejected by schools in the 50-20 range, but accepted to schools in the 20-10 range. Maybe its just my recall bias from scrolling through these forums too much. Maybe its because visitors to this forum are obsessed with going to grad school - no ridicule intended, I am the same. But how large is the variability in PhD admissions? How does variability change as a function of US News rankings? What are some reasons the admissions committee would favor the underdog, with a low GPA and less math prep - is it the research fit, given the pinned post on this forum? Also since most of us here have had statistical/math training to some degree, has anyone tried to model this, with maybe something like a logistic regression? P(acceptance) = f(department name, gpa, gre, us news rank, gradcafe sentiment, ... ) PS: I am very anxious as I am in the process of applying, forgive me if my questions are too brash.