The PhD Applicants Bill of Rights

[waytooold]

After testing, writing, gathering LOR's from professors who were kind enough to look at twenty year old transcripts, stamping, mailing, notarizing and confirming, I find the application process sorely wanting. I don't think any of the items below are unreasonable, and I would more than love to hear an institution argue against such things being the simplest of civil society behavior and more than manageable, yet in my experience thus far, these things are sadly rare.

1. Applications should be acknowledged by e-mail or letter.

2. Inquiries as to whether the application is complete should be responded to before the application deadline, unless program has posted a statement that no news= a complete application, and means it. In particular, programs that state that students are responsible for inquiring as to the completeness of their application should have sufficient resources to respond to such inquiries prior to the deadline.

3. If the program assures people they will receive some sort of notification by X date, this should be true.

4. Programs should post or communicate status of the application process 60 days after the deadline, with weekly updates.

What would you add, keeping it reasonable and realistic?

[jlloyd87]

After testing, writing, gathering LOR's from professors who were kind enough to look at twenty year old transcripts, stamping, mailing, notarizing and confirming, I find the application process sorely wanting. I don't think any of the items below are unreasonable, and I would more than love to hear an institution argue against such things being the simplest of civil society behavior and more than manageable, yet in my experience thus far, these things are sadly rare.

1. Applications should be acknowledged by e-mail or letter.

2. Inquiries as to whether the application is complete should be responded to before the application deadline, unless program has posted a statement that no news= a complete application, and means it. In particular, programs that state that students are responsible for inquiring as to the completeness of their application should have sufficient resources to respond to such inquiries prior to the deadline.

3. If the program assures people they will receive some sort of notification by X date, this should be true.

4. Programs should post or communicate status of the application process 60 days after the deadline, with weekly updates.

What would you add, keeping it reasonable and realistic?

I actually thought a while ago that if I was ever a professor then I would try really hard to keep a weekly email going to applicants until a decision was made. I cannot tell you how many times some general "I know you exist" email would have saved alot of anxiety.

[Sparky]

Programs should be explicit about where to send GRE scores, with the webpage providing the appropriate university code and the department code.

If a department knows that it will not be considering applications for a specific subfield, it should announce that when it knows, not after the application deadline.

If a department's application procedure has radically changed between last year and this year, the website should be updated to reflect this. (For example, if the dept has decided to interview finalists this year, for the first time ever.

Weekly updates might be a bit much, but I'm all for having programs send a note after the deadline saying whether or not all materials have been received.

(Note: this should be the "Grad Applicants' BoR," not just PhD )

[a.arcane]

After testing, writing, gathering LOR's from professors who were kind enough to look at twenty year old transcripts, stamping, mailing, notarizing and confirming, I find the application process sorely wanting. I don't think any of the items below are unreasonable, and I would more than love to hear an institution argue against such things being the simplest of civil society behavior and more than manageable, yet in my experience thus far, these things are sadly rare.

1. Applications should be acknowledged by e-mail or letter.

2. Inquiries as to whether the application is complete should be responded to before the application deadline, unless program has posted a statement that no news= a complete application, and means it. In particular, programs that state that students are responsible for inquiring as to the completeness of their application should have sufficient resources to respond to such inquiries prior to the deadline.

3. If the program assures people they will receive some sort of notification by X date, this should be true.

4. Programs should post or communicate status of the application process 60 days after the deadline, with weekly updates.

What would you add, keeping it reasonable and realistic?

Generally, I think they should acknowledge your application and provide information in a timelly and respectful manner.

I agree with #1. I agree with 2,3, &4 partially.

(2) Inquires regarding an applicant's application, in general, should be answered in a timely manner. Where necessary, form emails would suffice.

(3) They could notify if a date changes, Things can happen.

(4) UPdates yes. I think weekly updates might be a bit much.

(5 Like Sparky said, departments should post anticipated number of opening in cohort (including taking no students), and delineate their application process (e.g., interview or no interview).

(6) Everyone should be entitled to a letter/email instead of just a web link.

[ScotchDave]

I would add that if there are difficulties getting documents to a department and they are asked to notify you of arrival, as they will not review your application without them. It should not be necessary to phone the head of the department to find out if the documents were received, what turned out to be 5 days AFTER arrival.

Dave

[JerryLandis]

Admissions offices should check their phone messages regularly, and respond to phone and email messages if they have a policy of never answering the phone. (It bothers me that whilst applicants must be consistently professional in their communications with departments, there seem to be no standards for how applicants are to be treated - remaining polite while desperately trying to get the answer to a simple question from a department is very awkward and difficult!)

Applicants who are not accepted should be notified of their rejections.

Universities and programs with minimum GPA or GRE requirements/cutoffs should state these clearly on their websites so as to prevent those with no chance of acceptance from wasting time and money applying.

[piccgeek]

Rejections should be handled with class. When I got rejected from Notre Dame last year, it was in a one line email, no greeting or signing, sent en masse to a group of about 50 of us, emails clearly shown. That's just not okay.

[johndiligent]

I'd like an updated status bar on the website for every program that indicates where in the process they are... i.e. Applications Not Yet Reviewed, Initial Offers Sent: 6 Seats Still Available, Etc.

Unrealistic, I suppose, but it would definitely make the whole thing a bit more transparent.

[Nytusse]

How about a maximum time of delay between acceptances and rejections? It is ridiculous how long some programs wait to notify their rejects, when clearly they have already chosen who they wanted. Think of it as a right to a speedy execution...

[grendel]

How about "No secret GRE/GPA cutoffs?"

[Deleted]

I'd like an updated status bar on the website for every program that indicates where in the process they are... i.e. Applications Not Yet Reviewed, Initial Offers Sent: 6 Seats Still Available, Etc.

Unrealistic, I suppose, but it would definitely make the whole thing a bit more transparent.

What would be even better is an iPhone application that would gather this information for all your applications so you could check with one glance where you are everywhere in real time

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

Rejections should be handled with class. When I got rejected from Notre Dame last year, it was in a one line email, no greeting or signing, sent en masse to a group of about 50 of us, emails clearly shown. That's just not okay.

I know one poor girl who applied to U of Wisc-Madison and received a personalized rejection that read, "You are unqualified to be considered for this school and you will never be qualified to be considered for a PhD." Fortunately, another school disagreed with that assessment. But I could not believe the lack of class displayed in that rejection letter.

[caramel_geek]

I know one poor girl who applied to U of Wisc-Madison and received a personalized rejection that read, "You are unqualified to be considered for this school and you will never be qualified to be considered for a PhD." Fortunately, another school disagreed with that assessment. But I could not believe the lack of class displayed in that rejection letter.

That's just horrible. Definitely unacceptable by any standards. Shame on those people who crafted the email

[Boat Meadow]

How about "No secret GRE/GPA cutoffs?"

I actually don't mind if they have a cutoff - just let us know what the freak it is so I won't waste my application fee. Also let me know if you discriminate based on age - I know of schools I just won't get accepted to because of my age and wish I knew about the others...

[ootg]

I know one poor girl who applied to U of Wisc-Madison and received a personalized rejection that read, "You are unqualified to be considered for this school and you will never be qualified to be considered for a PhD." Fortunately, another school disagreed with that assessment. But I could not believe the lack of class displayed in that rejection letter.

That is truly horrible! What did the girl do to deserve such a write-off?!? No matter how bad an applicant's GPA/GRE, etc, I think that schools should handle applicants with courtesy!