ringo-ring

mind's eye

Haha... that's a secret weapon, that's why you won't usually hear other people talking about this method of getting into grad school...

That is mostly the same as research fit.

mind blown

baby pictures

well... I found some of your points interesting and wanted to argue with them; but I find it, how to say, beneath my dignity to reply posts that contain ad hominem arguments

I never mention that oneself is perfect judge - it presents as much skewed pictures as LORs do. But there are definitely objective measures, such as tests. I agree that they cannot measure everything, just mention tests as an example measure that is objective. All in all, with the great availability of study materials online, anyone who is determined enough can learn subject regardless of what they teach in undergraduate course; so even some subjectivity is introduced by difference in initial education levels, it can be compensated for. Not so with LORs! I will not judge on work reference since we don't have them here. Regarding the peer-reviewed journals, you can always select which journal you want to evaluate your submission. But as I mentioned before, with LORs you have to move on with what you have. If your fortune didn't provide you with good recommenders then there is little you can do about this. With journals, you can always submit your work where you think it will receive the most professional evaluation. All in all, I think that LOR is very tainted measure, and it is better if we come up with other, more objective ways to evaluate applicants, leaving LORs for what can they do best - evaluate social skills.

The post above is stupid.

If my talent, determination and abilities to come up with my own projects is nothing more than what another person thinks of me, then I better kill myself.

That is because for social/interpersonal skills, there seems to be no better measure than assessment of another person; for everything else, like knowledge on some subject, there are better, more objective ways to get an estimate. And not everyone will have about ~10 people who know you and your work well, to select three the most professional and honest ones who will rate your work objectively; most of the time, you'll have to go with what you have, and in the end, the final result depends on luck - some students happen to get the good teachers but other do not. What I'm trying to say, LOR depends on person who wrote it as much as on the student, which makes students very hard to compare fairly based on LORs in competitive admission process.

Absolutely! Interactions and teamwork are very important in science, a bit less in humanities (you might want to visit another topic I created to learn more about this: ) But still, it doesn't mean other people opinions should be the most important factor in grad school applications. All in all, everyone sees other people through his/her own lens, and their judgement is not accurate. The only thing that LOR's are getting accurately is social skills. They're important, but they're not the most important thing in research, that's what I'm trying to say.

Sorry, but creativity, which is important for research of course, is best of all measured by portfolio, publications, and writing samples. I simply don't understand how can some bullshit professor, who is by himself is no more creative than an empty can of soda, will have any right to assess my creativity. He can only write his own bullshit opinion nothing more. I will never understand why this little crap of paper called LOR played such important role in deciding my admission. If that's rules of the game then I better quit. GRE tests + GPA + portfolio/pubs is more than enough to make a decision. LOR you might want to look if you want to know applicant's social skills nothing else

Thanks to everyone for helping to clarify this issue. I would like to add that communication skills, that are obviously critical for grad school success, are not enough for writing good SOP, and writing SOP is quite different from what you're going to do as a scientist - writing papers. In papers, what is needed is to prove a viewpoint on some issue in your field of interest, but in SOP, you have to prove your personal characteristics also - being passionate, dedicated, etc. - that's why it requires social skills too. GRE test checks communication and argumentation skills isolated from all others, and it makes sure that it is student's own work, unlike e.g. writing samples. But even writing samples are a better alternative to the SOP here. But for some reason, they're not required for programs in sciences, only in humanities... But what graduate schools is looking to get out of LORs is not professional evaluation of your work, but again, social and personal characteristics. And for that some personal acquaintance is necessary. Anyway, I agree that LOR is the best way to estimate social/personal skills (maybe not best, but I cannot conceive of a better alternative right now) BUT for any other skills such as research skills different methods of estimation should be employed, that treat applicant's abilities objectively, not just from the viewpoint of another person. Right now, unfortunately, LORs seem to be used as a substitute for everything, given that low influence other measures such as GREs have on admission process Even if they're written by professionals, these professionals are still people, and tend to view other people through the prism shaped by their personal experiences. I agree that score on GRE tests and GPA are influenced by multitude of factors, but LORs and SOP are no less complex. I do not argue for eliminating LORs and SOPs completely - they are very useful pieces of information. But they shouldn't be given as much influence and credit, compared to all other factors, as they have now. Instead, they should be treated equally or even less, since social skills, by which these measures are highly influenced, however important, is not the most important thing in doing science. All in all, they can be learnt/improved in the grad school already. Personal characteristics are also subject to change (of course if we do not talk about such important traits as dedication, but they should be evident from accomplishments not anything else)

From what I learnt here at this forum is that such application components as: letters of recommendationstatement of purpose - are the most important in the whole application, while more objective measures of performance such as GRE scores, GPA and publications are the latest admission committee wish to look on! In my opinion, this is completely wrong, since LORs and SOP have much more to do with social skills than research ability. To write a good SOP, you have to know how to convince the reader, how to form the opinion you need through writing. To get a good LOR, you need to build a good relationship with recommender and somehow make him think good about yourself. It depends as much on the ability to present yourself in a shiny colors (which doesn't have to do anything with actual state of things) as on the ability to "befriend" the recommender, which as Dale Carnegie and many others has shown, boils down to a few simple things: be nice, hold the same opinion, and do not forget to mention he's a great scientist when talking to other lab members... and, avoid showing up yourself as too smart or independent, i.e. arrogant. Of course, social skills are also important since you'll have to work with other people in a lab, present your findings, mentor undergrads etc. but should they be the deciding factor? All in all, science primarily is not about being nice, but about the passion for research.

I agree that "intangibles" do not require preparation in particular subject, but what do they require then? Let's see! To get a good letter of recommendation, you need to have a good relationship with recommender and somehow make him think good about yourself. To write a good statement of purpose, you have to know how to convince the reader, hot to form the opinion you need through writing. In short, these are all social skills, not research skills. And disadvantaged background affects these social skills much more than it does to IQ. Even worse, there is no easy or obvious way to compensate for this! If you had bad education, for example, there are LOTS of free ebooks and courses available online for free, so anyone who was enough passion and determination can educate himself up to the any level required by school. However, for soft skills there are no obvious ways to train them up. So my opinion would be that intangibles are actually shortcuts through which mindless kids of privileged parents can make their way into grad school, even if they do not have any dedication and/or smartness to study to get a good GPA/GRE scores.

infinite possibilities

When I only started GRE a couple of years ago, I was also getting 400+ range. After practicing a lot with software for learning obscure words, I started scoring much better and got 520 on the actual test (better than on practice before). You still have a lot of time to practice and it is definitely better to do. In a highly competitive admissions it can just happen there will be a candidate just as good as you in all other respects but with higher GRE score. If there is any chance to make yourself more competitive its better to make use of it. Whether low GRE will keep you out of consideration or not, depends on the department, from what I know some do really have these cut-off scores, but others carefully review all applications & weight all factors.

university of michigan

A practical advice would be to find some ways to discredit the program you're waiting on. Having some connections on TV or newspapers is useful. Try to maintain the rumors until April 15.

Did you try to retake your GRE? Given all other qualifications you've enumerated, I tend to think you got this score by accident and you'll do much better second time.

do I have to vote on school or program count? I've applied to 4 schools, but 2 programs within one if them, so 5 programs in total. not too much compared to numbers other people report here... initially there were ~25 schools in my list but I "rejected" almost all of them after I got acknowledged with their research not to say the research was that awful (although for some schools it was!) but mainly because it wasn't a good fit for my interests. I anticipate I'll have to be less picky next year, or research even more programs to find at least 10 that will satisfy my requirements.