Too Good to Admit?

[Malumat]

Like I said, I think my department must differ quite a bit from what happens in English departments. We have fewer programs and fewer applicants, and so discussing specific applicants isn't as implausable. I have heard it straight from the horse's mouth, excuse the cliche, that professors at University of Chicago discuss the applicant pool with people they personally know at Harvard and Princeton. The specific case I heard of was Harvard not accepting a student who U of C was accepting as a result of such discussions. Ie, "We're taking him, he will probably be better off here anyway, don't waste a funded spot on him".

This type of scenario is obviously dependent on the presence of a group of professors who know each other personally and discuss such things "off the record".

This does seem to be a recurring theme. Does anybody want to volunteer any info regarding the extent to which graduate departments communicate with one another, both before and after April 15th?

[socialpsych]

This does seem to be a recurring theme. Does anybody want to volunteer any info regarding the extent to which graduate departments communicate with one another, both before and after April 15th?

Like Malumat, I am in a field where programs are usually very small (with admits in the single digits). And all I will volunteer is that...yes, people talk.

How could they not?

[americana]

Like Malumat, I am in a field where programs are usually very small (with admits in the single digits). And all I will volunteer is that...yes, people talk.

How could they not?

God, that's kind of terrifying, isn't it?

[Postbib Yeshuist]

God, that's kind of terrifying, isn't it?

Welcome to the world of academia. We will likely do the same things once we're profs.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Postbib Yeshuist

[milestones13]

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives.

One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant.

My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application.

At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this:

3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..."

Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement).

Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar:

Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused."

CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky."

CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here."

CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X."

CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y."

CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X."

(Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.)

In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS.

Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing.

CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further.

CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!"

CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see."

CM#1: "Oh...well."

CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly."

CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --"

CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!"

CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."

Edited April 23, 2010 by milestones13

[mudgean]

Interesting thoughts milestone. I have also wondered what adcomm's conversations must be like. Where do they begin with a stack of 500+ applications? Do they start putting apps into piles based on GPA or GRE's? Probably not rejection or acceptance piles, but piles like "looks promising" "definitely maybe" "a snowball's chance in hell." Or do they just pick an app off the top of the pile, open it up, and dive into the writing sample? I wonder if anyone has ever videotaped an adcom. It would be really helpful to know how the committees discuss writing samples.

[Pamphilia]

"One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by 'too good to admit' based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution"

In English at least, no.

[Postbib Yeshuist]

Probably not rejection or acceptance piles

Actually, that's what steering committees are for. I imagine it goes something like this:

Pile 1: More than 20% below the (arbitrary) GRE+GPA cutoff and did not make contact with a professor (i.e. the trash).

Pile 2: Same as pile 1, but did make contact. These apps get a quick read of the SoP by one committee member to determine if they go to...

Pile 3: Met/exceeded GRE+GPS cutoff but has not made contact. Read by more than 1 member (perhaps entire committee) to determine if they go to...

Pile 4: Met/exceeded GRE+GPA cutoff and has met with a prof who has expressed some measure of interest in the project. These apps are reviewed closely by the steering committee and the top 10% are sent to departments for "final" decisions.

This is how I imagine it goes. I'll even go you one step further by estimating what I think the percentage of initial apps are. I'm willing to bet only 10-15% move from one pile to another.

Pile 1: up to 50% (every "I've got a BA now, time to apply for PhD")

Pile 2: 10%

Pile 3: 25%

Pile 4: 15%

The treatment of the piles may be different for schools with fewer apps (~100), but I imagine the above "pile system" is accurate for the top schools.

[Catria]

Like Malumat, I am in a field where programs are usually very small (with admits in the single digits). And all I will volunteer is that...yes, people talk.

How could they not?

 

They may talk to each other but, most of the time, who they would be talking to correlates with their research collaborations.

 

Sorry if I necro-post...

Edited March 6, 2015 by Catria

[Wonton Soup]

And the dead shall rise! And be snobby and petty!

[Dr. Old Bill]

[1Q84]

They may talk to each other but, most of the time, who they would be talking to correlates with their research collaborations.

 

Sorry if I necro-post...