safety schools

[gradhopeful96]

Did you apply to them? Do you think there are any schools that are safe? If so, what are yours?

basically, I’m bored, anxious and curious

[Prose]

maybe

[markovka]

The concept of the safety school does not apply in the case of PhD admissions since in my experience if you think you are not ready to do it, then it is better to take a year off to do whatever is necessary to get in you in a good shape. PhD should be something that you are doing for itself rather than collecting course credits because this is what you'll get in whatever a school you land in. The question is why, if you think it will not be as challenging and rewarding as it could be? Having said that, I recognize the value of getting course credits as a pathway towards PhD, though not a "safety school."

Edited February 3, 2019 by markovka

[Marcus_Aurelius]

There are some schools that I applied to which, while I'd be happy to go to them and they're good schools, aren't quite my preference for a variety of reasons. Of the schools I applied to, in that category I'd put Brown, UT-Austin, and Notre Dame. (And of course the calculus would be very different for someone with another AoI.)

That being said, my impression is that the concept of a true "safety school" might not apply so well because schools are unlikely to accept someone whom they think will be gobbled up by a more highly rated school and so won't take their offer.

[kakaz]

I think that there are often times in a person's list, schools that are more preferable and less preferable, but that specialize in the same field/area. So those less preferable ones could be considered "safety" schools in the sense that if rejected from choice 1, choice 2 carries a higher chance of being accepted due to lower rank, less faculty diversity, etc. etc.

[practically_mi]

I didn't apply to any safety schools really (only PGR top 25), mainly because how risky it is to do a PhD in philosophy anyway in terms of finding an academic job afterwards. My letter writers also discouraged me pretty strongly from applying to safety schools. I think that this approach has made the application season more anxiety-inducing for me (trying to have very low expectations), but I also feel like it made sense to spend my money on applying to more highly ranked schools given how unpredictable the process is

[soproperlybasic]

I'm going to echo what @markovka said here: there is no such thing as a safety school. I wouldn't look at funded MA's as safeties either. Philosophy is deadly competitive, no one is guaranteed anything.

Edited February 3, 2019 by soproperlybasic

[bluwe]

6 hours ago, Marcus_Aurelius said:

That being said, my impression is that the concept of a true "safety school" might not apply so well because schools are unlikely to accept someone whom they think will be gobbled up by a more highly rated school and so won't take their offer.

 

Does this really happen? It really doesn't make sense to me that a program would just assume that a person is not desirable to study at their program because they seem overqualified to study at that program.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

36 minutes ago, bluwe said:

Does this really happen? It really doesn't make sense to me that a program would just assume that a person is not desirable to study at their program because they seem overqualified to study at that program.

My understanding is it definitely does. Not just in philosophy, of course; I know that such "yield protection" is common in law school admissions. But it's intuitive: if a school has a limited number of spots and wants to maximize its yield (i.e. the percentage of its initial acceptances who come) and the quality of its students, it should pass over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere, and it should reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but night go to that school.

[Cogitodoncrien]

2 hours ago, Marcus_Aurelius said:

My understanding is it definitely does. Not just in philosophy, of course; I know that such "yield protection" is common in law school admissions. But it's intuitive: if a school has a limited number of spots and wants to maximize its yield (i.e. the percentage of its initial acceptances who come) and the quality of its students, it should pass over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere, and it should reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but night go to that school.

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too).  So, what's your evidence that this happens?.  Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it!  Duke was always the place for me!").  Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer.  So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true.  Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"?  Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances?  Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different?  Are they different simply by degree?  If so, by how much?  If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer?  One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department.  But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions.

I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

[maxhgns]

2 hours ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

Search committee members often admit to doing this in hiring decisions, where the stakes are much higher. Check out just about any thread on the subject on one of the blogs--Leiter, DN, Cocoon, Philosophy Smoker.

I have, in the past, seen admissions committee members say the same thing, although it was years ago, and I couldn't point you to it now. It's more common for programs to have long waitlists (or large admissions pools) instead, on the assumption that most of the students they admit outright will turn them down. But it does sometimes happen the other way, too.

 

In both cases, it strikes me as a bad decision (though it's especially out of touch with the realities of the job market, where anybody is lucky to get even a single offer). But there it is.

[Izakawa]

Ironically, I am rejected from my safety schools. Instead, waitlisted at top programs. LOL

[Prose]

3 hours ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too).  So, what's your evidence that this happens?.  Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it!  Duke was always the place for me!").  Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer.  So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true.  Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"?  Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances?  Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different?  Are they different simply by degree?  If so, by how much?  If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer?  One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department.  But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions.

I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

tl;dr

[Kantattheairport]

48 minutes ago, Izakawa said:

Ironically, I am rejected from my safety schools. Instead, waitlisted at top programs. LOL

Can relate.

For reasons already spelled out by others, I don't think of any schools as 'safety schools' either; however, I did add a bunch of schools from both higher and lower in all the usual rankings with the view that applying to more schools automatically boosts chances somewhat. I might not have applied to all of those schools if I were only putting down what I thought were the best fits, but I would of course be happy to attend any of them. So while none of the specific schools are 'safety schools', the general process of bloating the number of places you apply to, I think, is a safety procedure.

[lurkingfaculty]

Hi. I can tell you from experience on multiple different admissions committees that schools definitely engage in this practice. And, in my case, admissions committees in the same department, but made up of different faculty, make different decisions about whether to engage in this practice. (So, at least in my department, there is no policy about it, the admissions committee is made up of a rotating cast of 3-5 people, and whether we use the strategy "admit the best people and hope for the best" or "try to guess at who we have a decent chance of actually getting and admit them" is basically dependent on what those 3-5 people think.) As a practical matter, this is part of where good fit with the research interests of the faculty can help you if your file is strong (perhaps weirdly, it is also why being a less good fit can help you if your file is weaker). If you have a fantastic file and aren't a great fit for the department, you're likely going to get rejected because we don't want to take the chance on you given that you are going to get into places that are better fits for you. If you have a fantastic file and are a great fit, you're more likely to get accepted even with the worry that you'll go elsewhere, because we have more to offer you and there is more of a chance you will come (if, say, you got into our program and a higher ranked one that was a worse fit for you).

[Cogitodoncrien]

19 hours ago, Prose said:

maybe

 

5 hours ago, Prose said:

tl;dr

A rare treat: an internet troll who, in addition to being smug, is also hilarious.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Cogitodoncrien

[Prose]

4 minutes ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

 

A rare treat: an internet troll who, in addition to being hilarious, is also smug.

I just didn't have time to read your magnum opus

[Cogitodoncrien]

5 minutes ago, Prose said:

I just didn't have time to read your magnum opus

Oh boy, your cohort is going to love you.

[Prose]

1 minute ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

Oh boy, your cohort is going to love you.

relax buddy it's some internet sarcasm world is a harsh place

[Cogitodoncrien]

4 minutes ago, Prose said:

relax buddy it's some internet sarcasm world is a harsh place

Thank you for this helpful and enlightening advice.

[Moose#@1%$]

15 hours ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too).  So, what's your evidence that this happens?.  Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it!  Duke was always the place for me!").  Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer.  So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true.  Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"?  Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances?  Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different?  Are they different simply by degree?  If so, by how much?  If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer?  One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department.  But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions.

I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

So, I think you have really good points and I've always wondered about the truth to such speculations. However, I have heard directly from selection comittee at my MA that they do such calculations. Now, how reliable or what methodology they use, I have no idea. But, when asked by me and couple of other Grad students the exact words were (more or less), "it's hard to really know. We had some excellent applicants some from top schools (I think that year we had applicants from Oxford, Washington, UCLA etc.),  sample paper, and great recommendations but you know.. its hard to decide whether we should offer them admission. Because the fact that they're application is this good made us wonder whether they would end up choosing somewhere else and we'd end up using up a spot when we could have offered to someone else. But then again you don't want to pass them up because you think they might choose somewhere else. On the other hand we also want to offer admissions to people who we think might be more likely to choose us." and more of the same back and forth for about 10 mins..

So, I agree with you but I also think there is definitely truth to this theory or speculation. 

Overall, I really don't think there are any "safe schools." It is all about your fit. You might get rejected from a "safe" school because of bad fit and get accepted at a top school because of a good fit. Now, ofcourse some of these top schools are charged for having cut off measures (Idk how true that is) but I think your fit is the most important.

[Cogitodoncrien]

2 minutes ago, Moose#@1%$ said:

So, I think you have really good points and I've always wondered about the truth to such speculations. However, I have heard directly from selection comittee at my MA that they do such calculations. Now, how reliable or what methodology they use, I have no idea. But, when asked by me and couple of other Grad students the exact words were (more or less), "it's hard to really know. We had some excellent applicants some from top schools (I think that year we had applicants from Oxford, Washington, UCLA etc.),  sample paper, and great recommendations but you know.. its hard to decide whether we should offer them admission. Because the fact that they're application is this good made us wonder whether they would end up choosing somewhere else and we'd end up using up a spot when we could have offered to someone else. But then again you don't want to pass them up because you think they might choose somewhere else. On the other hand we also want to offer admissions to people who we think might be more likely to choose us." and more of the same back and forth for about 10 mins..

So, I agree with you but I also think there is definitely truth to this theory or speculation. 

Overall, I really don't think there are any "safe schools." It is all about your fit. You might get rejected from a "safe" school because of bad fit and get accepted at a top school because of a good fit. Now, ofcourse some of these top schools are charged for having cut off measures (Idk how true that is) but I think your fit is the most important.

It definitely seems to be a messy sort of situation, and from the anecdotal evidence that you and others have provided it surely is the case that at least some professors engage in yield protection calculations.  I wonder what effect, if any, there would be on the process if there were no PGR to begin with.

[Moose#@1%$]

12 minutes ago, Cogitodoncrien said:

It definitely seems to be a messy sort of situation, and from the anecdotal evidence that you and others have provided it surely is the case that at least some professors engage in yield protection calculations.  I wonder what effect, if any, there would be on the process if there were no PGR to begin with.

Agreed, this entire process is just a giant mess. There are just too many moving parts and perpetually changing variables. I tried my best to only apply to schools where I believe I was the best fit, instead of trying to "break the admission code," it's just too much and I wanted to stay sane and keep my head full of hair haha. Truth be told I did just stay away from Top schools.. Like Yale, Harvard, MIT etc., but primarily because my GRE scores weren't that great and I was warned by a few people that schools like that are likely to have cut off points. Mainly because of the number of applicants they receive. but good luck to you, hoepefully you get in where you want.

[bluwe]

I suppose it makes sense if yield really matters in the long run. To me, it seems that the only thing that this strategy protects against is having to send more acceptances and field more declined offers, but so what? Everyone knows about the April 15th deadline, so it's not like a student that hasn't heard back from their (remaining) first choice school X is going to accept some other school Y's offer, before X can put an offer in front of them. Unless there's some administrative reason that ad coms are encouraged to filter applications like that, then it seems you can still get this student to go to X so long as that offer is in front of them by the 15th of April, with, seemingly, no long term loss (i.e., the students that are most qualified and fit the best at the program enroll there). I'm not sure what is lost in adopting this strategy, but I do know what is gained: more anxiety for applicants as some of us infer rejection from school(s) we thought we had a relatively good chance at getting into--all the while looking down the road to programs where prospects of admission are much lower. 

[Cogitodoncrien]

6 hours ago, Moose#@1%$ said:

Agreed, this entire process is just a giant mess. There are just too many moving parts and perpetually changing variables. I tried my best to only apply to schools where I believe I was the best fit, instead of trying to "break the admission code," it's just too much and I wanted to stay sane and keep my head full of hair haha. Truth be told I did just stay away from Top schools.. Like Yale, Harvard, MIT etc., but primarily because my GRE scores weren't that great and I was warned by a few people that schools like that are likely to have cut off points. Mainly because of the number of applicants they receive. but good luck to you, hoepefully you get in where you want.

Thank you, and good luck to you as well.