JordanJames

I just was wondering, from what everybody's heard, how important are the LORs? I mean, once you pass the GPA and GRE cutoff points, do they then concentrate on your LORs and research interests. Also, how important is it that the LORs come from professors who taught in the discipline? The reason I ask is because I have 3 terrific recommendations, but not from political scientists (the discipline I plan to enter). All 3 are law school professors who also hold PhD's and in the past held tenured positions in other fields (2 historians and an economist). They all spent time talking me into applying to PhD programs, and I'm fairly confident that all of them gave me recommendations that are about as good as a recommendation can be. I believe some within the political science community know them through their publications. This is especially important to me because my GPA is low (3.4), and for some of the programs I'm applying to, very low. I also transferred 3 times as an undergrad (financial problems, not grades), and didn't end up graduating from a top 50 school. My GRE scores are good enough (high Q, V is nothing to brag about), I have a J.D. and some research experience as an RA for a law school professor and through a law school fellowship, so I'm hoping my LORs can help overshadow my UGPA. If anybody has any program specific info, here are the schools I'm applying to: Brandeis Chicago Harvard Illinois Illinois - Chicago Northwestern Penn WUSTL UC - Riverside Yeah, I know my apps are all over the place on the reputation meter, but these are the schools that have professors I want to work with and I'm utterly confused as to how much my GPA is going to affect the strength of my application. Also, I do realize that the applications are already complete and that there's nothing I can do about it now, but like everybody else, I'm freaking out (probably due to all the posts I've read on this board). ONE MORE QUESTION that is totally unrelated (I'm too lazy to start another thread): At one of the schools I've applied to, the professor I wanted to work with (and is the only professor specifically mentioned in my SOP) has decided to take a position at another school. I still would like to go to the school, but I don't know how to handle this situation. Should I email the graduate director and tell him why I still would like to go to the school, or should I lay off the caffeine (and this website), grab a beer and try to chill out for the next couple of months?

I see your point, and in the case of those studying certain humanities subjects, it is useful. But for a philosopher or even a historian, I would certainly imagine problem solving skills are more important than knowledge of obscure words. I plan to study political science and I'm not in graduate school, so I obviously don't know, but I would think that testing verbal ability rather than vocabulary would be a step up. Anyways, having a test is certainly better than not having the test. I understand that a taught law school program is different than a graduate research program, but from my experience, those in law school who scored higher on the LSAT but had a low GPA did better than those with a high GPA and a low LSAT score. I know when I applied to law school I heard plenty of complaints about the LSAT from other prospective law students, but after going to law school, I realized that LSAT scores do matter.

I think the GRE needs to be revamped, and in the case of engineers, yes the GRE is pretty much useless (since virtually everybody scores a 750+ on the quant anyways). But the high schol level math tested on the GRE is more a test of intellectual agility and logic than anything else. The GRE is flawed, but at least it provides an objective standard by which to judge people. And the problem with your example, is that, in my opinion, the GRE does not test knowlege (except obscure vocab, which I think is ludicrous), it tests general problem solving ability, which is relevant to almost any discipline. I know people, and I'm sure you do as well, who knew which classes to take and with whom in order to get higher grades. I'm not talking about taking basket weaving instead of orgo, I'm talking about taking the same class with a professor with a better curve or a class that appears difficult on paper, but was actually easy at the school it was taken. In addition, some schools inflate grades to an almost unreasonable extent, while others make it difficult for a student to get a B average. I had a professor who never gave an A in his 10 years of teaching and professors that rarely give Cs. So that's why I think it's unfair to compare 2 people's GPAs and come to a judgement on their ability based on that. I think recommendations can tell a school much more about a person's ability to solve complex specific problems in a person's area of study than a GPA. I think the GPA should definently be a factor in admission decisions, but I think the GRE and LORs are more important.

No offense to anyone, but I think that if there were no standardized test involved in the whole graduate admission process, the same people who are complaining about the test would be complaining that the whole graduate admission process is too subjective. The test can and should be improved, but it still is one of the best ways for schools to evaluate students. In fact, I would argue that it's more important than undergraduate GPA (it should be noted that my undergraduate GPA is terrible). In my opinion, the GRE, LORs and SOP should be the most important factors in determining a person's potential as a grad student. But what do I know.