The MOST important things in application are...

[ringo-ring]

Suppose you have a pool of applicants, and each applicant has near-top scores in any three of the fields listed above, but so-so scores in others. You have only 1 place. Which candidate would you choose? Please select 3 most important characteristics, in your opinion...

Edited March 13, 2011 by ringo-ring

[eklavya]

you missed 'research experience' up there. there are numerous of us who have TONS of research experience but no publications, and this has to count. research interest is required obviously, but the depth of research experience is probably more important over # of pubs.

[ringo-ring]

you missed 'research experience' up there. there are numerous of us who have TONS of research experience but no publications, and this has to count. research interest is required obviously, but the depth of research experience is probably more important over # of pubs.

duly noted.

[fortehlulz]

you missed 'research experience' up there. there are numerous of us who have TONS of research experience but no publications, and this has to count. research interest is required obviously, but the depth of research experience is probably more important over # of pubs.

I agree. I voted for publications only because it was the closest option to "research experience," but I do not think you necessarily have to be published to demonstrate this experience, especially in some fields where publishing is near impossible for undergraduates and even masters students.

Edited March 13, 2011 by fortehlulz

[fuzzylogician]

LORs from someone famous vs. from someone rather anonymous: what is the content of these letters? I'd take a detailed, glowing recommendation from a less know prof over a 'did well in class' letter from a bigshot any time. Other than that, it's fit and research experience for me.

[Eigen]

I think you need another LOR category: LOR written by a professor that knows the student really well.

LOR's from professors that have had long-term research based interactions with the student carry a lot of weight. LOR's from professors that had them in a couple of classes where they did well don't carry nearly as much.

[ringo-ring]

I think you need another LOR category: LOR written by a professor that knows the student really well.

I thought of including this category but it seems to be more about the quality of LOR rather than independent category.

Just like practicing GRE will result in better score, having more discussions about your research with the prof will result in better LOR. The question is - which prof is to choose and does the prof really matter that much? - maybe it's better to invest your efforts in test preparation, or something else. Hope the poll can provide some clues about which parts of the application are best to work on.

[fuzzylogician]

I thought of including this category but it seems to be more about the quality of LOR rather than independent category.

Just like practicing GRE will result in better score, having more discussions about your research with the prof will result in better LOR. The question is - which prof is to choose and does the prof really matter that much? - maybe it's better to invest your efforts in test preparation, or something else. Hope the poll can provide some clues about which parts of the application are best to work on.

Getting good LORs is nothing like preparing for the GREs, the comparison that you are making is too simplistic. Again, which LOR to choose depends on the content of the letter that you will get. The content matters more than the writer. All things being equal, you'd want the famous writer, or else someone who has ties to the department that you are applying to. But things are rarely equal, and in general the stronger letter is better than the the weaker one from the more famous writer.

[Eigen]

I thought of including this category but it seems to be more about the quality of LOR rather than independent category.

Just like practicing GRE will result in better score, having more discussions about your research with the prof will result in better LOR. The question is - which prof is to choose and does the prof really matter that much? - maybe it's better to invest your efforts in test preparation, or something else. Hope the poll can provide some clues about which parts of the application are best to work on.

My point is that even assuming both will write "good" letters... I think it is more important to pick an advisor that has worked with you a lot than to pick a famous advisor OR one known to the department where you're applying. It comes down to a question of who you pick.

It's not about convincing them to write a good letter, it's about how much they can talk about you in the letter- how much time they've spent with you and in what different situations. A famous prof can write all the flowery compliments he wants, but if he hasn't actually spent 2 years working in a lab with you, he can't talk first hand about your research ability.

And from what I've seen, it's the ability to give first hand accounts of your talents and skills in the research arena that's important in the letter. I've had people on adcom's tell me they'd prefer an honest, even appraisal of someone's skills from a professor that's seen them in a lot of different situations than a glowing but relatively non-specific letter. I've also had some tell me that unless a letter mentions some downsides to the applicant, they don't consider the letter honest and only put so much stock in it- either the writer doesn't know the student well enough, or is simply avoiding anything but the good parts of the student's work.

::edit:: Tagging onto fuzzlogician- I think too many people worry about how "positive" the letter will be, instead of worrying about how in depth the letter can be. Ideally, a strong letter is both very positive, and very specific/in depth. A weak letter can either be less positive OR less specific.

"XXX is an excellent student, he got A's in all my classes and kept up with the work very well" from a famous professor is still a relatively weak letter. They can see how you did in the class from your transcripts- they want to know what you're like as an individual, and as a researcher. If the writer cannot speak to either of those things, it will be a weak letter, imo.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Eigen

[ringo-ring]

So far, the poll shows:

The best strategy to get into graduate school is:

a) research various departments carefully, to understand what kind of research each of them is doing

from the list above, select the direction that would fit most departments, i.e. "mainstream"

c) get a good research experience on that direction. that should lead either to a good LOR from prof known by departments, or a publication

d) have a good basic education

e) apply to as much departments as possible

f) wait...

nothing weird so far

Edited March 15, 2011 by ringo-ring

[fuzzylogician]

Sorry for being blunt but developing better data-analysis skills may also help you achieve your grad school dreams.

Specifically, your poll says "Research interests that "fit" the department" -- that to me does not by any means suggest that you should choose your research interests based on the mainstream. It means that you should choose the schools you apply to based on the interests that you have so far developed. Once you define your own interests--which is actually very hard to do, as many discover during the process of writing the SOP--THEN you research universities and as in [a] and find the ones that fit you.

As for [c]- you should also aim to get your research experience in your chosen field, if you can, but really the exact project is often less important than just having the experience and the resulting LOR. Other than what you've already listed, remember that you need three letters. So yes, it's good to have a strong working relationship with one prof who you are doing research with, but you need to keep in mind that you'll need two others. Go to office hours, make sure you have options among the tenured or tenure-track faculty.

As for how many schools to apply to.. well, it depends on how many of them fit your interests, and on other outside factors that may or may not play a role for you - like weather, job opportunities for SO, proximity to family and friends, etc.

[ringo-ring]

Oh, I see my data analysis skills are developed so well I cannot take your "criticism" seriously.

If your research interests are in concordance with mainstream science, then obviously you'll have more options while applying, since it will be easier for you to find departments that fit those interests. Therefore, if you haven't decided on your research interests yet, keep in mind that choosing something from mainstream will make your chances higher. It doesn't mean you should choose from mainstream and I haven't said so. It just will make your chances better, accordingly to poll at least.

Of course, it also means you need to choose schools that fit your interests, but it does not contradict previous statement.

[fuzzylogician]

Oh, I see my data analysis skills are developed so well I cannot take your "criticism" seriously.

If your research interests are in concordance with mainstream science, then obviously you'll have more options while applying, since it will be easier for you to find departments that fit those interests. Therefore, if you haven't decided on your research interests yet, keep in mind that choosing something from mainstream will make your chances higher. It doesn't mean you should choose from mainstream and I haven't said so. It just will make your chances better, accordingly to poll at least.

Of course, it also means you need to choose schools that fit your interests, but it does not contradict previous statement.

I see I got you upset but still I haven't gotten you to think enough about what you're saying. I'll say this and then stop because I don't think I'm getting through here. You have your cause and effect the wrong way. 'Fit' is about choosing schools that match your interests, not about choosing interests that match many schools. Grad school is a very difficult endeavor of 5 years or more, leading to a career in your chosen field. If you choose to work on a certain topic because it is popular, and not because you love researching it, you won't make it through, or you will be unhappy. Good luck with all your future choices.

Edited March 15, 2011 by fuzzylogician

[ringo-ring]

fuzzylogician, you need to learn to understand irony.

popular research direction will increase your chances of being admitted. that's how it is. how to act on this information is up to anyone's own choice. but for now, the science, given such grad school system that makes "fit" the most important thing out there, seems to work on replicating itself rather than supporting and promoting new discoveries.

[Eigen]

fuzzylogician, you need to learn to understand irony.

popular research direction will increase your chances of being admitted. that's how it is. how to act on this information is up to anyone's own choice. but for now, the science, given such grad school system that makes "fit" the most important thing out there, seems to work on replicating itself rather than supporting and promoting new discoveries.

Popular research interests will hurt as much as help your application... They're popular, which also makes them way, way more competitive.

You need to develop your research interests, and then apply based on those. I mean, maybe if you're talking to a Freshman or Sophomore about developing their research interests this might apply (when they still have 3ish years to develop a background in that area) but otherwise, you should go based off what your interest has been and your background is in.

I think it's pretty apparent in admissions when someone is just parroting interests that the department has, vs. a defined interest in an area that the department also has research in. If not in the SOP itself, it will be extremely obvious upon interviews. You won't be able to have a rational explanation for why you're interested in a research topic or how you got there... And that's important in convincing a department of "fit".

But to reinforce what fuzzylogician has said... If you are picking your research interests to give you a better shot at a school, you probably won't make it through a PhD- it's long, it's tiring, and unless you have a truly abiding interest in what you're studying, it's absolutely brutal.

[Eigen]

Heh... I also just noted looking through who voted for what options that there were definitely some people that didn't read the "choose 3" part of your poll.... I'm looking at you, Chaospaladin- you voted for every option! Also several people who voted for 4 options.

Definitely skewing the results some.

[thesnout]

I'd say Research interests that "fit" the department. You can have a 4.0, publications, good GRE, etc but if a professor isn't interested in your work and research, you won't get in. The results board says it all.

[ringo-ring]

Popular research interests will hurt as much as help your application... They're popular, which also makes them way, way more competitive.

That's true. But since "research interests" seem to carry much more weight than any of other factors, having ones that are popular at therefore "fit" the department will still give one advantage over others with less recognized research. IMHO

[Eigen]

That's true. But since "research interests" seem to carry much more weight than any of other factors, having ones that are popular at therefore "fit" the department will still give one advantage over others with less recognized research. IMHO

You keep talking about "fitting" the department. You don't "fit" a department.... you "fit" a particular professor/research group. The Department likely won't have a particular leaning as far as its research, most strive to cover as many different bases as possible.

And most research groups will only be taking 1-2 students (likely 1) per application cycle. Which means if it's a popular area, there will be a ton of students competing for that one spot.... And lots fewer competing for spots in other groups. If your research interests "fit" a less popular group that has room and funding, and there are far fewer people interested in that area... That will be a huge perk in your application.

That said, I still think you're completely off base on trying to tailor your research interests to something mainstream. Pick something that interests you, and then find one program among the 100+ out there that has faculty specializing in that, and you'll stand a good chance at getting in.

Another thing to keep in mind: "mainstream" areas fade/change fast. You may end up having a better shot at getting into grad school (pick a hot topic, it's still hot two years later during grad school apps) but by the time you're on the market for a post-doc and job... The area will likely not be so hot anymore, and it will be way harder to land a job- the market is flooded with people who went into said "hot topic", and no one really wants to fund it that much anymore.

[ringo-ring]

Hi Eigen, a single professor oftenly cannot decide on your admission - to have a better chance, you better fit several profs/research groups, i.e. "department". Since faculty with similar interests usually group together, that should be feasible.

By "mainstream" I mean well-established, proven, and widely-distributed research approaches, not ones that are "hot". You need to look for approaches that lots of scientists made career on - and therefore unlikely to wrap-up in a couple of years, are easily funded, and so forth..

It is much less risky to continue well-trodden path in your graduate application, especially one that fits faculty well, than try to present your own outlook. The latter you can do safely after passing the graduate admissions barrier and perhaps the first year of grad school.

Of course you can follow your heart and pick up the program closest to your research field in the 100+ range, but I bet if you really love what you're doing, you want to give it as better resources as possible, ideally in the top 10 range Even if this involves a bit of trickery.

"Ordinary" research or, how to say, research that everyone has tired of already, may actually have a better shot when it comes to graduate admissions. Of course as a scientist you need to do what you love, but this motto doesn't make much sense if you sit without lab, funding, and degree to be able to get yourself lab and funding. At this point of the career - before you're even a graduate student - the most important thing is to climb yourself up to the point where you can do what you love safely, and with enough resources to make it flourish.

----------------------------------------------

PS I don't consider this state of things in science right. But it seems to naturally follow from over-importance of "fit" in graduate admission process.

PS2 I would like to ask "haters" to stop voting all of my posts down. Thanks.

Edited March 15, 2011 by ringo-ring

[basst]

Statement of purpose is important too.

[Eigen]

So by following this advice, where have you gotten in this year?

It seems like you're telling people who have successfully navigated the admissions process (and now have our bosses talking to us about how they pick graduate students) that we're wrong in the best way to go about a productive career in science.

I know every professor I know would consider your advice really, really bad for someone who wanted to pursue an academic career. They want people who have their own ideas- solid ones- from the start of the application. Ideas that build on things that are currently being done.

Scientific research is about being novel. New ideas, new ways to do things... Those are what the NSF and NIH fund.

You're getting down-rated because your conclusions are quite honestly bad- we want to make sure people don't come here, read them, and think they are widely accepted methods for successfully getting into graduate school- especially since you are generalizing them as a conclusion from our poll votes. When people see a post they dislike/disagree with, they vote it down. That doesn't make them "haters". It is the purpose of the little red minus button at the bottom of each post.

I don't, however, believe I'm going to convince you- and beyond that, it's the right if each person to choose how they want to apply, what strategy they think is best. Best of luck with your applications following through with your methodology.

[ringo-ring]

Dear Eigen,

First, if you were honest to yourself you would see that my posts ain't getting down-rated because of "bad advices" - just compare those posts that have "bad advices" and those who were down-rated.

Second, my "advice" was a joke, but every joke is half-truth. I didn't even think I would have to protect them seriously, but I just couldn't leave fallacies in your post unaddressed. But on overall, I completely agree that scientists should pursue their own research ideas, not those that are "popular".

Edited March 16, 2011 by ringo-ring

[ringo-ring]

Here the quote from MIT BCS graduate admissions FAQ:

How are graduate students selected?

Graduate student selection is based primarily upon evidence of research interest and potential for work within the areas represented in the department.

[eco_env]

I voted for research fit, because I feel like that was my shortcoming in applications: I expressed interest in research done in the dept, but didn't have experience to back that specific interest. I think there are 2 problems with programs looking for fit: 1. students don't have a chance to explore new areas in grad school (esp. in my field where you need a pretty much permanent advisor before you get accepted). 2. students can't get into a new area of research that isn't already well established. I think problem 1 is what's keeping me out of grad school this year, despite mostly good GRE scores, education in the field (prertty good GPA and subject GRE), an almost publication, and research experience.