Too Good to Admit?

[strokeofmidnight]

Wow, I step out for a day, and miss all the fun.

I wanted to revisit this from a very different perspective. The rankings DO matter...the way that fashion trends and celebrity endorsements have impact on sales. Whether or not they're "legitimate" or not, whether or not they reflect the real strengths and weaknesses of the program (they do and they don't, but they're unreliable either way)...as long as academics continue to believe in them, the "name brand" mystique that all too heavily influences USNWR will have some impact on how applicant from certainly programs are perceived. Thankfully, English academics tend to be (at their best) a self-critical lot and I suspect that the trend is moving away from a blind reliance on traditional name recognition. Although i do wonder about the extent to which USNWR ranking (or more simply, layman's name recognition) influences fellowship competitions, it seems that job search committees (placement is probably the single--if still incomplete--gauge of a program's quality) far less superficial...and seem to focus far more on the perceived quality of a candidate's diss (and of course. publication record...and depending on the job/school, teaching credentials) then the name on the diploma. Maybe the USNWR will eventually reflect these changes (though their methodology leaves much to desired)...but until then, I'd rather do my own research into who's doing what where in my field. After all, these are largely based on responses from professors about their perceptions of the quality of other departments. After speaking with over 3 or 5 dozen professors in a over a dozen schools (granted, this is over the span of 3 years)...I get the feeling that while they have a very good sense of what individual professors (especially in their field) are up to, their perceptions of other programs are VASTly outdated. Case in point: EVERY SINGLE PROFESSOR that I spoke with about Berkeley (except for the two that received their degrees from there recently), was convinced that the school admits 30-40 students per cohort and weeds them out over 2 years. I think that this was true at one point...but this hasn't been the case for years (decades, I think). And yet even professors who obtained their PhD's after this practice had been abolished still thought it was true. I'm sure that Berkeley isn't the only program suffering from this...I've heard the same said (repeatedly) of Columbia, Chicago, and Duke...and although I'm only familiar with one of these programs, I suspect that it's true for none for them. Professors don't always (frankly, rarely it seems) have an accurate perception of how the GRADUATE PROGRAMS at other schools are run (which is not to be confused with the academic work that their colleagues are producing)...and those are the very people who contribute to the rankings. Blind leading the blind, I tell you.

*

To address the the topic of this post...I think that "good" is at once too simplistic and too vague to capture the complexities of this process. I do think that every single school will admit applicants based on quality, "fit" and (usually but not always synonymous) the likelihood that they would accept the offer. Obviously, those are not discrete things--and for many (if not most) applicants, they're rolled up into the same issue: can you present a topic that is well suited for the resources of this program? Do the questions that you ask resonate with the admissions committee, or with their colleague's work? Does your writing sample pique their curiosity...and show that you have the skills (writing, research, methodology, sophistication, etc) to explore your research interests in a nuanced, responsible manner? And--this is utterly beyond our control (or knowledge) as candidates--does the program currently have enough resources to make room for you?

Most of the time, I think that the "likelihood that you will accept" question is bound directly with "fit." But if you give a program reason to suspect otherwise (for those of us who oh-so-brilliant wrote in the wrong program name on the SoP!), this can become an a reason to disqualify your application. I suspect that if one isn't genuinely excited about a program (aka, if it's a safety for you)...and isn't sufficiently knowledgeable to have a sense of what it's looking for...it shows (even if you tried to mask it), and programs that are accustomed to a high declination rate might be especially sensitive to strong-but-less-enthusiastic applications. Nor do I think that this is only limited to lower-ranked programs. 3 of the programs that turned me down were ranked within the top ten (and, even if we toss out the rankings, are undisputabily among of the strongest in the country). Discussing my rejection with their DGS's, I was told that I would have received first-round offers if they weren't so sure that I would turn them down. (For what it's worth, they were right. My thinking has shifted drastically since I applied, but in December, I had one top choice and 9 absurdly selective "safety schools"). I won't get into what it is about my application that prompted them to believe this (it certainly isn't fit--all there are really great places for the sort of research that I want to do), but English ad-comms are incredibly good at reading in between the lines, even when we think that we've covered our tracks well. *grins* Not surprising, I suppose.

Edited April 19, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[diehtc0ke]

To piggyback off of SOM's post, I actually hadn't realized that so many people could be ignorant of how other programs are run and perhaps there is some harbored resentment there that never went away. Thinking about it now, I've been given that impression of Berkeley over the years with no real reasoning to speak of or recent example to illustrate it. Though I had no intention of going to the West Coast for my Ph.D, had I applied to Berkeley (which I would have) and gotten in (which I probably would not have lol), that impression would definitely have kept me distanced from that program until I visited and saw how things operated first hand. My own opinions about Columbia (a school that I did not apply to for various personal reasons along with what I'm about to say) come out of a professor telling me about her experience there--in the 80s, before I was born. Back then, before flash drives and back up services, one girl burned another girl's only copy of her seminar paper the night before it was due. In 2007, I was still being told that Columbia does indeed accept a larger number of students with the intent of providing a cutthroat environment to separate the wheat from the chaff (pardon the cliche. It's one of the only ones I actually like). The fact that most applicants don't visit potential schools before they're applying makes this whole business of trying to figure out exactly why someone was rejected from any school, regardless of ranking, seem nonsensical in the first place. Despite claims that you did research on schools and determined that it was a good fit for you academically, who are we to say that it really was a good fit for you in totality? And that's what I was trying to get at before my replies took on an even more personal bent. This might not have been an issue of ranking (because, let's be real, I doubt schools like BU or UCSD think they're second-rate programs because they're not in the top 40 of a largely arbitrary national ranking system)--you might actually have not been a good fit for these programs. I'm framing this in the context of the OP's specific situation because that is how this all was originally framed.

And, just because I find it to be a heartwarming tale, I am more than just guilty of putting the wrong program's name in my SOP. I remain convinced that the school that was easily my number one choice when I began this process (School 1) never got the chance to really evaluate my portfolio. Why? I sent them a copy of the personal statement that had been tailored for the school I will be attending in the fall (School 2), complete with a list of about four School 2 professors that I admired and wished to work with and a concluding paragraph in which I named all of the different archives and cultural institutions that would be of great use to me. I also went on to the claim that School 2's city was the ONLY city in which I could properly conduct my research. Lovely.

Edited April 19, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[americana]

I think that the heart and soul of my having brought forward this question was to determine the following information:

Should applicants be deterred from applying to School A if they think that school A would not accept them based on the applicants' apparent likelihood to turn them down to pursue better offers? (We can maybe refer to this as a school's Yield Hesitancy.)

Of course, applications are expensive and consume huge amounts of resources (from our recommenders, plus our own time constraints, etc.), so determining whether to roll the dice on applying somewhere really is a big deal.

If an applicant chooses to go forward with that application to School A, what can s/he do to improve her/his chances of being accepted in light of what s/he may suspect to be that school's Yield Hesitancy?

[Pamphilia]

Should applicants be deterred from applying to School A if they think that school A would not accept them based on the applicants' apparent likelihood to turn them down to pursue better offers? (We can maybe refer to this as a school's Yield Hesitancy.)

Of course, applications are expensive and consume huge amounts of resources (from our recommenders, plus our own time constraints, etc.), so determining whether to roll the dice on applying somewhere really is a big deal.

I understand that apps are expensive and awful and we might want to just say, "Well, I'll apply to my 'level' to avoid unnecessary applications." But it is SO HARD to determine one's "level," if we can even use a very problematic concept like that. Stats in NO way determine where one ought to apply, because they're so insignificant in the big scheme of things. It's really hard, also, to gauge one's own writing sample and SOP (the stuff that will get a person in), as we all know. And we've heard so many instances of applicants being treated as the undergrad department darling/genius only to be rejected all around--so we know that it's really difficult even for our mentors to gauge our "level." I still think it's important to apply to a range of programs* (though of course only ones that are good fits and ones about which the applicant is genuinely enthusiastic) just because it's nearly impossible to estimate--truly--the strength of one's application. I also very much believe that applications success has way more to do with FIT than rank or "level." I suspect that Strokeofmidnight's anecdote about being rejected at schools that assumed she would go elsewhere had more to do with her particular circumstances (and particular fit) at a certain institution as much if not more than her application's "level." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Stroke--apologies if I am.) Though, as it has been pointed out, the level of one's discourse and scholarly abilities can also fall into the "fit" category. And again, it's so hard to gauge before you apply, so applying widely is still probably beneficial.

*I realize that a "range" of programs might mean very different things to different people.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Postbib Yeshuist]

Wow, that's kind of a bitchy reply.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly true. I think you got a good answer and discounted it outright because it didn't fit with your preconceived notions of reality. I also wonder if some of the schools saw that in your application. Believe it or not, the Top 20's tend to be pretty oblivious sometimes, with the lower schools being a bit more astute because they attract a different type of "talent."

Edited April 19, 2010 by Postbib Yeshuist

[breakfast]

Wow. What a thread.

I'll begin by saying congratulations to your top-20 admit. You were clearly fishing for compliments, so I won't let your efforts go unrecognized. You are much better than all of us who accepted offers at schools ranked "way down there" in the 60's and 70's according to USNWR, and you were too good a candidate for these programs. One wonders why you even bothered to apply. I mean, surely you could have gotten accepted to any top-10 program of your choice.

Or rather, seeing as how completely transparent your writing is, perhaps the admissions committee at these "low ranked" schools saw right through your statement of purpose. Pretentious? Check. Pompous? Check. Thinks she is too good for our program? Check. It's clear from your post that you didn't want to go to any of these. They were merely a back-up in case of a rejection from one of the "better" ivy programs.

Enjoy your top-20 program. You'll probably fit right in. Don't worry about the rest of us plebs in our terribly low ranked programs.

the rankings are meaningless. example: the USNWR ranks harvard as the #9 school for latin american history. they don't have a latin american history program. they have one person on their faculty, who for all i know may be a very talented scholar but who has zero name recognition in the field. they don't take on latin americanist masters students because they never offer seminars for that field. the small handful of latin americanists there received their MAs elsewhere and are attending harvard to work with that lone professor in particular. how is that a top 10 program? these rankings are based in large part on surveys of professors. to formulate the subfield rankings, they don't just survey the professors of that subfield; they ask every prof in the profession. the many historians that don't know anything about latin american history but know that harvard's supposed to be good at everything put the school into their top 10. the profs that do know a bit ("professor X is great and he's at school Y") don't necessarily know enough to realize that professor X moved to a different school half a decade ago. they don't keep up with the field enough to know which professors moved or retired, so their rankings are often based on former reputations that may or may not still hold true.

here is my advice for future and current applicants: THE RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. leave the confines of this website and no one talks about rankings. you look for the best academics in your field. you find out where they're teaching and (if they're young) where they went to school. those are the places you apply to.

noticing a pattern based on biased data is not evidence of a causal relationship. if the rankings actually reflected the quality of the faculty and the placement rates of graduate students, then you might have something. but they don't. i also don't understand how this thread is supposed to "help" future applicants. to me, it came off like you wanted someone to validate your rejections from lower-ranked schools based on you being too good, rather than programs which are beneath you somehow deeming you unworthy.

I just wanted to agree with this. Fantastic post with a lot of great information.

Edited April 19, 2010 by breakfast

[kandeya]

Or rather, seeing as how completely transparent your writing is, perhaps the admissions committee at these "low ranked" schools saw right through your statement of purpose. Pretentious? Check. Pompous? Check. Thinks she is too good for our program? Check. It's clear from your post that you didn't want to go to any of these. They were merely a back-up in case of a rejection from one of the "better" ivy programs.

Enjoy your top-20 program. You'll probably fit right in. Don't worry about the rest of us plebs in our terribly low ranked programs.

I don't post to this forum often, but I don't think this level of hostility is warranted, at all. I don't think anybody, when they apply to grad school, knows what constitutes an absolutely perfect fit, especially considering most of us are probably too broke to go jetting around the country visiting places. The point is, you do as much research as you can, and you spread your bets. I think the wisest advice I read on these boards was to not apply anywhere you couldn't see yourself being at, because while your cards may turn up right and you end up at your top choice, it doesn't always happen that way. To all our new applicants about to run the gauntlet: "yield hesitancy" shouldn't be one of the things you consider when you apply--apply to wherever fits your research, fits your academic profile, and fits where you want to be. You may have to dig deep and do a lot of research--and ask yourself a lot of questions!--but you'll find those answers after a while. Don't apply to schools for the sole reason that it's a "safety" school by the numbers, because you'll just be miserable if it's your only option after decisions come out.

as for whether candidates can be "too good" to admit, I'm sure it figures into the decision. but so many things constitute the decision-making that it just seems foolish to single one thing or the other out and claim it was the reason for acceptance or denial. The thing is, we can never be absolutely sure if it's the deciding factor. They could've rejected you because they filled their quota for your specialty. Maybe they needed to cut down on people and other candidates filled whatever holes needed to be more urgently filled. Maybe the admission committee threw darts at a board and picked out whoever got hit. The point is, looking a one thing and wondering whether it's the reason you didn't get in seems to be an exercise that'll lead you nowhere. Does "yield hesitancy" figure into the decision? Sure. Is the only reason for a decision? Probably not.

(For what it's worth, I was rejected to all the English departments I applied to, except for one waitlist which I turned down. If I get the funding, I will be attending a South Asian studies department at a school I consider pretty good, though I've no idea if it's "top-20" or not.)

[2bphd]

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.

now, happy?

[breakfast]

I don't post to this forum often, but I don't think this level of hostility is warranted, at all. I don't think anybody, when they apply to grad school, knows what constitutes an absolutely perfect fit, especially considering most of us are probably too broke to go jetting around the country visiting places. The point is, you do as much research as you can, and you spread your bets. I think the wisest advice I read on these boards was to not apply anywhere you couldn't see yourself being at, because while your cards may turn up right and you end up at your top choice, it doesn't always happen that way. To all our new applicants about to run the gauntlet: "yield hesitancy" shouldn't be one of the things you consider when you apply--apply to wherever fits your research, fits your academic profile, and fits where you want to be. You may have to dig deep and do a lot of research--and ask yourself a lot of questions!--but you'll find those answers after a while. Don't apply to schools for the sole reason that it's a "safety" school by the numbers, because you'll just be miserable if it's your only option after decisions come out.

I agree with all of this. Yes, my post was hostile, but at the same time I think the question being asked is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a legitimate response.

I think one of the best things you can do before applying is determine fit (both academic and social). You should talk to potential advisers, and more importantly, talk to your current professors who like you and know you well. The best advice I received was from one of my undergrad professors who I have a lot of respect for. In our many conversations about graduate school never once did rank come into the conversation. I think people focus too much on the USNWR rankings to determine where they will apply. I've said it before, but it seems like the only people that actually care about rank are hopeful graduate students applying to or accepted to a "top ranked" program. Who you work with is infinitely more important than the rank of the program you came from. Yes, sometimes the highest ranked programs have super-star faculty, but "lower ranked" programs are home to super-star faculty as well. I don't begrudge anyone for applying to Yale and/or Harvard if they are actually a good fit with the program and a potential adviser. The real problem is when people apply to those programs because they are Yale and/or Harvard.

Edited April 19, 2010 by breakfast

[divinemg]

I would just like to add a few thoughts...

1. I, like a few others, do not find the level of hostility to be justified. I understand how the tone of certain posts might have been misunderstood but I think we should all be careful when interpreting each other's words (myself included!). One of the drawbacks to electronic communication is that most of us do not know one another intimately and it is extremely difficult to correctly analyze things like tone when we cannot actually speak to one another. That being said, I, like americana and many others, have been puzzled by how adcomms make their decisions. For this reason, I think americana's questions are perfectly valid. However....

2....perhaps the question should not be whether "low ranked" programs will outright reject highly qualified applicants because of their likelihood to be accepted to "high ranked" programs. I applied to 8 programs for fall admission and I remember being asked about the other schools to which I was applying by the majority of these programs. I struggled with these questions--I wondered why an adcomm would ask for such information and what it would be used for. This discussion has caused me to wonder: is it possible that these questions are asked to gauge whether an applicant will have a much better "fit" at another program s/he is applying to and, therefore, should not be admitted to the program in question (or should be less prioritized for funding)? This, I think, makes better sense (at least when speaking of programs that request such information in their applications for admission). Like others, it has been my experience that faculty at my undergraduate institution are most knowledgeable about the specifics of different English programs' faculty members and the research being completed in various departments. Considering this (and assuming this, in general, is how professionals in the field of English evaluate other programs), it would make sense that adcomms might consider an applicant's research interests, how these interests "mesh" with faculty research at the other programs to which s/he applied, and whether there is a significantly better "fit" for the applicant on the provided list of programs.

This is just some useless hypothesizing on my part. Obviously, admissions decisions are complicated and vary between programs. Rather than considering rankings and possible rejection as a result of "overqualification," I think an applicant might be better served to consider his/her research interests, those applications that asked for information regarding other graduate school applications, and whether this information and hypothesized "fit" might have had anything to do with an adcomm's decision to provide admission or funding. (And, no, I don't think a decision would be made based solely on this information. Admittedly, I have *no* idea what really goes on during the admissions process.)

Hope this is clear....I'll be happy to clarify if what I have attempted to verbalize didn't quite make sense.

Edited April 19, 2010 by divinemg

[wordslinger]

I think we are all going through a very stressful time period right now... it's the end of the semester, decisions are made/about to be made regarding school in the fall, and things are altogether hectic. But I must admit that I prefer these English forums when we've got each other's back, you know?

That being said, I am an insensitive galoot in real life and rarely discern straightforward, personal insults, either on paper or in person, and yet the tone of the OP's comments raised my hackles. I think, as a previous poster mentioned, it's the whole talk of "low ranked" and "high ranked" programs, perhaps combined with my middle-class upbringing and the over-emphasis on ranking and achievement as a measure of success. I don't think Americana was intentionally hurtful in her comments, and a considerable portion of my reaction to them has little to do with her original intention anyway.

Better to talk it out than not.

[Malumat]

I agree with divinemg about interpretation of posts... I think it would be best to give someone the benefit of the doubt that they're not "fishing for compliments" and just discuss the issue brought up. I think that some people are being really sensitive based on their own insecurities.

Anyhoo... I would like to add to a theme that keeps coming up: that the Adcom's prediction, based on certain factors, of where you will actually accept in the end, can be considered part of the overall idea of FIT.

I know most of the people here are in English departments so I am bringing a different perspective as someone in Near Eastern Languages and Lit. But, I happen to know that among the top handful of schools in my field, there is discussion among Professors from different schools who know each other about the applicants and where they would be better off, and if one school is certain to accept a student, another school may not offer admission to this student, knowing they will be accepted at the other school (and with a concern for yield rates at the forefront of this decision).

Although this is not the same dynamic that we are talking about, it displays a concern for not accepting a student who the adcom has determined, for whatever reason, will probably go elsewhere.

On the topic of rankings, and the concept of a student trying to determine what array of schools to apply to, I think it must be more difficult in English than in other fields. In other words, I think there must be less variance in the preparation and "on paper" credentials of those accepted into various "levels" of schools. I know there has been a lot of discussion about whether you can order schools realistically, and even though it's a problematic process I think everyone can agree there are schools that most people in a certain field would rather go to, regardless of where they are on the official ranking. This could even be affected by where they are located, attractiveness of life there etc...

My point is that it seems to me that students in English have a more difficult time gauging where they belong, even within their own personal ordering of schools.

I say this because I feel like in my field, for me and my peers it has been pretty clear. Schools that are not highly ranked typically just don't have the resources to provide, just as one example, language training in less commonly taught languages with low enrollment levels. On the other side of the coin, the top schools have fairly clear criteria for who is a competitive applicant, and it includes language proficiency in both local languages and European academic languages, as well as a proven track record of working with primary source material. Of course it's more complicated than that but my point is that there seem to be more tangible or measurable skills for an applicant to gauge themselves in my field, and I imagine in many other fields.

English may be particularly tricky in this regard (in ascertaining where you will be a competitive applicant), but correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Malumat

[soxpuppet]

I know most of the people here are in English departments so I am bringing a different perspective as someone in Near Eastern Languages and Lit. But, I happen to know that among the top handful of schools in my field, there is discussion among Professors from different schools who know each other about the applicants and where they would be better off, and if one school is certain to accept a student, another school may not offer admission to this student, knowing they will be accepted at the other school (and with a concern for yield rates at the forefront of this decision).

Although this is not the same dynamic that we are talking about, it displays a concern for not accepting a student who the adcom has determined, for whatever reason, will probably go elsewhere.

You make a lot of astute points here, but I just wanted to highlight this one. I know for a fact that many admissions directors (in English) DO talk to each other about who they are admitting, especially when directors at other programs are members of their subfield, personal friends, etc. Such networks are nearly impossible to discern from outside the bubble, and it would be pretty much ridiculous to try to take advantage of them as an applicant, but it's likely that they occasionally play a role in admissions decisions.

[rtrgwnd]

Undeniably, Yale's great, so is Harvard so is Princeton, so is Berkeley, so is UVA, so is WashU, so is Emory, so is UC Davis, etc. What I'm surprised to see is schools lower down the list referred to as "low ranked." These schools within the 50-60 range don't strike me as "low ranked" at all: Tufts, University of Florida, University of Oregon, University of Rochester, University of Connecticut, Boston College (I don't know much about the others in this range -- but I'm sure the same goes for them). They're strong programs, not the best, but close enough to it to be solid options in lieu of the top schools. Is it really accurate to consider any of these schools "low ranked" English PhD programs? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just never viewed the list that way. Even of schools lower down than that, I thought, oh, they're ranked.

[Bumblebee9]

I think this is largely an undergraduate phenomena, called Tufts Syndrome. Graduate schools seem to be less concerned with acceptance vs. admit rates. I agree that from my experience applying this time around (and as a graduating masters student) that schools want the best students for their programs (based on fit, experience, creating a cohort, academic/career promise, whatever). Next year I'll just have to submit a better application (Now that I have time--nothing but time!).

[Pamphilia]

On 4/20/2010 at 11:06 AM, Bumblebee9 said:

I think this is largely an undergraduate phenomena, called Tufts Syndrome. Graduate schools seem to be less concerned with acceptance vs. admit rates. I agree that from my experience applying this time around (and as a graduating masters student) that schools want the best students for their programs (based on fit, experience, creating a cohort, academic/career promise, whatever). Next year I'll just have to submit a better application (Now that I have time--nothing but time!).

In terms of boosting matriculation rates, I think you're correct that it's pretty much an undergrad thing (I always heard it was "WashU Syndrome," haha). But I think some programs do probably reject (or recruit less aggressively) students they believe will probably go elsewhere because 1) they may have only X funded spots, and if one gets turned down they don't get it back (this has apparently been a real problem this year in particular); and 2) they might not want to waitlist Applicant A, who they really like, just to offer a place to superstar Applicant B--who will almost surely go elsewhere--because Applicant A will be less likely to accept the offer (because it comes late in the season, or comes with a smaller fellowship, or appears to signal less enthusiasm for the applicant, or what have you). If this kind of selection does occur, I think has more to do with a program making sure they get the cohorts they want rather than boosting yield rates.

[8521679]

My undergraduate SLAC dropped out of the USNWR rankings altogether, a move I supported from start to finish. I do think, however, that graduate programs, which are all pointed at least to an extent at the common goals of educating their students in a specific discipline and installing their graduates in tenure-track jobs, are a bit easier and more useful to rank.

That is not to say that rankings are justified in their present form; indeed, they are not. I think that what StrangeLight means when she says that "rankings are meaningless" is that "rankings should be meaningless." Sadly, that is not the case at all, and any applicant or current student would put themselves at a professional disadvantage by simply pretending that the rankings don't have an effect on the field. Here's why, in my opinion:

1. Those same professors who fill out those (highly unscientific) rankings questionnaires are also the professors who sit on departmental hiring committees. So if they think your program is sufficiently excellent to rank highly, that's more likely to reflect well on you as a graduate of that program and as a job applicant.

2. Following on Americana's contention, if a school has a fantastic record of securing funding and grants for its students, placing them well, etc., then they will do better in the rankings than a school that is less successful in such ways. This is a meaningful, and somewhat quantifiable, matter that no applicant should ignore.

3. Many undergraduate applicants, and the parents who foot the bills for their children's educations, want to see name brands attached to the school's faculty rolls. They see Harvard/Stanford/Yale and assume that they're getting the best education possible, helping to justify the cost of study. This is an unfortunate, but real, truth. A graduate from a ranked, branded school has an unfair job advantage in this regard. Again, unfair, but real, and certainly not "meaningless."

Lastly, Americana's tone has indeed been provocative (even unnecessarily so, though it had certainly inspired some impassioned and articulate responses, which is a good thing). But no one on this forum deserves to be flamed in such a way. A number of posters have questioned her character or made unqualified and baseless presumptions about her academic qualifications, and I find that to be fairly repulsive. Particularly 2BPHD's comment that "Yes you are too gud (sic) to admit… in any university." Do recall that ours is a phenomenally small community. 2BPHD, for all you know, Americana, however pompous she may be, could very well be sitting on your tenure committee some day. Learning to respect people is therefore more than polite; it's just good strategy.

This is a forum for academics and professionals, albeit nascent ones, and that kind of language does far too much to deteriorate the effectiveness of this conversation.

Edited April 20, 2010 by 8521679

[Strong Flat White]

... I'm not going to name school names, but... I know of at least one program, competitively ranked, that has a reputation for passing "blindly" over applicants who receive multiple top-10/ivy offers, even when those applicants feel they are a strong fit. ...

Soxpuppet, how would this competitively-ranked program know about the applicant's other offers?  I am admittedly oblivious here, but it seems to me that most admissions decisions are overlapping in their time frames and not sharing information with other programs.  In fact, I would think that applications would be confidential within a department (as a uni administrator, I think FERPA looms large even when not directly applicable)... so, I don't understand how x program could say, let's pass over this applicant because they've already been accepted by y and z?  Just... how would they possibly know?  

And please feel free to name school names.  This is, after all, thegradcafe.com.  Hit us with it!

[Strong Flat White]

See, this was the point of my question. I also think that there's a huge amount of luck to this process, but I find it curious that my acceptances came bunched into one spot on the rankings ladder, and that I tend to see very similar results all across this forum. It's quite rare to see a person accepted to both Brown and Arizona State (for example). So while luck may be a massive factor, there does seem to be an identifiable pattern. I'm sorry that my remarks have motivated so many people to press the little red "ME NO LIKE" button under my comments, but please recognize that this is a legitimate issue for current and future applicants.

I, for one, find it highly curious, Americana, that you garner so many nasty red clicks when your posts are entirely reasonable and well articulated.  You ask a valid question, period.  Hell, there may be no answer to give, but... hey, it's a question!  Good question!

I think it's actually quite revealing.  There is, in fact, a club.  Either you're a part of it, or you're not.  Call it pedigree, call it talent, call it luck, call it "it."  Call it "The Teleology of the Applicant!"  Take a worldview of agency or determinism or some mix thereof.  That's part of the discussion in other threads about the "elusive 'it'" (you have "it," or you don't).  I, personally, am having a hard time accepting an invitation to "the club" by a graduate  chair at a department that I've not been accepted to, I've not received straight answers from, but - according to them - if I do *code of the club* then they "look forward to seeing my application."  However, if I quote them the text on their own website, they balk, they stall, they give cautionary advice, they contradict themselves.  

So here's what I've found, Americana: Asking the club for advice about tree-house rules when you clearly don't know the secret knock (or what to do with a door left eerily ajar) will simply net a cumulative bad red rating.  It doesn't matter how well you serenade the balcony or play Goldilocks.  Somehow you got into a clubhouse somewhere (and apparently a really good one, congratulations!) while the rest of us misfits wander from playground to playground sniffing glue.   Count your blessings, cut this thread, and run with it!  Someday a pariah like me will ask for a helping hand, and it will be the successful pariah like yourself who I hope will answer the call.  In the meantime, keep asking your good questions and to hell with all this ridiculous negativity.

[Strong Flat White]

... You were clearly fishing for compliments, so I won't let your efforts go unrecognized. You are much better than all of us who accepted offers at schools ranked "way down there" in the 60's and 70's according to USNWR, and you were too good a candidate for these programs. One wonders why you even bothered to apply. I mean, surely you could have gotten accepted to any top-10 program of your choice.

Or rather, seeing as how completely transparent your writing is, perhaps the admissions committee at these "low ranked" schools saw right through your statement of purpose. Pretentious? Check. Pompous? Check. Thinks she is too good for our program? Check. It's clear from your post that you didn't want to go to any of these. They were merely a back-up in case of a rejection from one of the "better" ivy programs.

Enjoy your top-20 program. You'll probably fit right in. Don't worry about the rest of us plebs in our terribly low ranked programs.

...

I just wanted to agree with this. Fantastic post with a lot of great information.

WOW!  I didn't get that impression at all!  Let it be known that others out there didn't see this as fishing or condescending.  This coming from a guy who has no shot at snobbery in his lifetime.  Or am I fishing?  Wait...

[Strong Flat White]

the rankings are meaningless. example: the USNWR ranks harvard as the #9 school for latin american history. they don't have a latin american history program. they have one person on their faculty, who for all i know may be a very talented scholar but who has zero name recognition in the field. they don't take on latin americanist masters students because they never offer seminars for that field. the small handful of latin americanists there received their MAs elsewhere and are attending harvard to work with that lone professor in particular. how is that a top 10 program? these rankings are based in large part on surveys of professors. to formulate the subfield rankings, they don't just survey the professors of that subfield; they ask every prof in the profession. the many historians that don't know anything about latin american history but know that harvard's supposed to be good at everything put the school into their top 10. the profs that do know a bit ("professor X is great and he's at school Y") don't necessarily know enough to realize that professor X moved to a different school half a decade ago. they don't keep up with the field enough to know which professors moved or retired, so their rankings are often based on former reputations that may or may not still hold true.

here is my advice for future and current applicants: THE RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. leave the confines of this website and no one talks about rankings. you look for the best academics in your field. you find out where they're teaching and (if they're young) where they went to school. those are the places you apply to.

noticing a pattern based on biased data is not evidence of a causal relationship. if the rankings actually reflected the quality of the faculty and the placement rates of graduate students, then you might have something. but they don't. i also don't understand how this thread is supposed to "help" future applicants. to me, it came off like you wanted someone to validate your rejections from lower-ranked schools based on you being too good, rather than programs which are beneath you somehow deeming you unworthy.

All depends on your landing page:

http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/graduate-students/specialty.php

[2010international]

"I'm not going to name school names, but... I know of at least one program, competitively ranked, that has a reputation for passing "blindly" over applicants who receive multiple top-10/ivy offers, even when those applicants feel they are a strong fit. "

I'm curious to know how these programmes are aware that their candidates have multiple top-10/Ivy League offers. I would think discussions of which other schools/depts a candidate is considering would happen AFTER an acceptance has been made, not while the application is still under review?

I find the OPs question a very legitimate one. My own situation was somewhat similar where I was accepted to two programmes that are both ranked higher for my field, but rejected by a third (let me point out that though quite a few places lower in the rankings than the other two, this third would still be seen as a top school) which i absolutely had my heart set on going to and thought i stood the best chance of getting accepted into. evidently not. it really seems like luck plays some part in this too - or some factor which we can't be aware of outside the system.

Edited April 22, 2010 by 2010international

[tem11]

I also think the OP asked a legitimate question. I don't really think programs reject people because they're "too good" though. I applied to some top ranked schools as well as some that were not even ranked at all. The Director of one unranked program called me multiple times and practically begged me to come there. One of the things she said was, "I know you probably have offers from much more respected institutions, but understand that the more excellent students we recruit here the better our program will be." Universities obviously want the best work coming out of their school and there's no reason why they would deny admission to someone who they felt was a good fit. How many threads have we seen about people who get into amazing programs but choose to go to their second choice or third because of family ties, financial situations, etc.? It just doesn't seem very plausible to me.

[2bphd]

Lets get real here!

1. When you say you are too-good to admit for a particular program, it actually means that you deserve a better program and you can get that. When Adcoms look at your profile, they can also figure that out, so you might get rejected.

2. You are too-good to admit in a particular program, but you still apply there for a backup. You should understand that there are other too-good to admit students who will think the same way and apply there for a backup. When Adcom reviews the application of these too-good applicants, its possible that there were some too-too-good applicants who had better profile/LOR/SOP fit than you, and they were accepted and you got a reject.

When I say lets get real, I want to stress on the 2nd point. I personally dont think adcoms will reject a candidate who is too-good because thats what adcoms are for - to select the best of the applicants. Also, a very honest advice, nobody is too-good, the world is full of smart , harworking people. You show me a too-smart guy.. in a moment I can bring someone who will make him look dumb as a rock.

Good Luck

[americana]

I'm curious to know how these programmes are aware that their candidates have multiple top-10/Ivy League offers. I would think discussions of which other schools/depts a candidate is considering would happen AFTER an acceptance has been made, not while the application is still under review?

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?