Veracity of posted averages for admitted students

[cunninlynguist]

This can apply to virtually any program or field, so if you have any experience, please feel free to share it.

My question is a basic one: Are the posted averages/medians for admitted students provided by departments generally accurate? For my programs of choice, both of my quantitative factors (GPA/GRE) fit into what is recommended for admission based on previous classes of incoming students. However, based on a cursory glance at the Survey (and many topics), it seems like there are high numbers literally everywhere. Is that a function of GradCafe and its membership, or is something to actually be concerned about? The sample size for my field on the Survey isn't large, however (and for many fields - still a useful and interesting tool, though).

Obviously there are other important elements of the application, but I can't pretend that some of the numbers posted here don't scare me!

Any general input would be appreciated.

[lyonessrampant]

If you meet admitted averages it means your app won't be booted aside in the first round of cuts. After that, how much objective factors matter depends on your program and school. However, the general rule of thumb is that objective factors matter more in sciences apps and less in humanities, but in all fields, the other parts of your application matter a lot more. If you meet admitted averages on the objective factors like GRE and GPA, I wouldn't worry about those numbers anymore and focus on the rest of your app. You hear stories every year of people with perfect GRE scores rejected across the board and people with dismal scores admitted into multiple top-10 programs. The things that distinguish you like research experience, SOP, CV, etc., are what really matter most, though GRE scores can help with fellowships and, like I said, making it through the first round of cuts. If your total is over 1200 or 1250, you're probably fine as far as that is concerned.

[cunninlynguist]

If you meet admitted averages it means your app won't be booted aside in the first round of cuts. After that, how much objective factors matter depends on your program and school. However, the general rule of thumb is that objective factors matter more in sciences apps and less in humanities, but in all fields, the other parts of your application matter a lot more. If you meet admitted averages on the objective factors like GRE and GPA, I wouldn't worry about those numbers anymore and focus on the rest of your app. You hear stories every year of people with perfect GRE scores rejected across the board and people with dismal scores admitted into multiple top-10 programs. The things that distinguish you like research experience, SOP, CV, etc., are what really matter most, though GRE scores can help with fellowships and, like I said, making it through the first round of cuts. If your total is over 1200 or 1250, you're probably fine as far as that is concerned.

Reassuring, and aligns with my main priorities now (writing the best SOP possible and identifying appropriate faculty). My score is a 1240, and like you said, most fellowships I've come across have a 1200+ requirement. Additionally, the admissions coordinator at UMich - my #1 choice - told me that most applicants for the program don't have traditional research experience, so I'd bet that raises the importance of the SOP, LORs, and fit.

Thanks for the insight.

Edited June 22, 2011 by cunninlynguist

[flotsam]

I just finished reading a book called The Gatekeepers. It's about the process used by university admission officers to filter applicants from the search for students with "the right fit", through the application-filtering stage, to finally choosing students who come off the waitlist. It explains in detail what part of the process results in those tests/GPA scores used by colleges to calculate their average entrance scores and rank the schools. It was a fascinating read and I came out of it feeling a bit disillusioned. Yes, there is a great amount of the process that is subjective, making it seem so arbitrary to the applicant. So much depends on the essays and letters of recommendations. An incredibly low GPA and GRE can be an initial dealbreaker but if your experience is strong and you have the ability to put it in writing and get back-up from people who are respected in your area of interest, a set of average scores could be counterbalanced. The colleges, it seems, WANT an over-abundance of students to apply for a very limited number of spaces because it makes them look better. That makes those LOR's and SPO's all the more important.

[GardeningGrad]

flotsam is right on track. I would only add that if you're curious about the averages or how to curate a better application, start polite and professional communication with the administrators of the departments you may apply to. I received some excellent - and honest - advice from a friendly program admin last year that encouraged me to retake the GREs and slant my SOP in a different direction. The admin explained that he was the gatekeeper - the admissions committee asked him to sift through applications and toss any that didn't make the 'numbers cut-off' (GPA, GRE).

Edited June 22, 2011 by GardeningGrad

[starmaker]

For my programs of choice, both of my quantitative factors (GPA/GRE) fit into what is recommended for admission based on previous classes of incoming students. However, based on a cursory glance at the Survey (and many topics), it seems like there are high numbers literally everywhere. Is that a function of GradCafe and its membership, or is something to actually be concerned about?

It might be a function of GradCafe. People who bother to post on a board like this tend to be pretty driven. It might also be a function of the phenomenon where not everyone on the Internet tells the truth. Back when I did the CollegeConfidential thing, it was generally accepted that some people made up high numbers for themselves to fish for praise and intimidate other applicants (or to bolster their case for why Preferred College was So Wrong to have rejected them, and get sympathy).

At the PhD level, as long as your numbers aren't bad, fit is more likely to matter anyway. I had a friend a few years ago, who had excellent research experience and recommendations but mediocre grades and a lowish GRE, apply to 10 programs and get rejected by all except the most prestigious two of them (both of which were top 10 in her field).

[cunninlynguist]

I just finished reading a book called The Gatekeepers. It's about the process used by university admission officers to filter applicants from the search for students with "the right fit", through the application-filtering stage, to finally choosing students who come off the waitlist. It explains in detail what part of the process results in those tests/GPA scores used by colleges to calculate their average entrance scores and rank the schools. It was a fascinating read and I came out of it feeling a bit disillusioned. Yes, there is a great amount of the process that is subjective, making it seem so arbitrary to the applicant. So much depends on the essays and letters of recommendations. An incredibly low GPA and GRE can be an initial dealbreaker but if your experience is strong and you have the ability to put it in writing and get back-up from people who are respected in your area of interest, a set of average scores could be counterbalanced. The colleges, it seems, WANT an over-abundance of students to apply for a very limited number of spaces because it makes them look better. That makes those LOR's and SPO's all the more important.

Very interesting. I wonder if some departments post "recommended" numbers (usually rounded) to dissuade potential applicants despite not explicitly stating there's a threshold. It's one thing to have an absolute minimum of 3.0 and, say, 1000; it would seem another thing entirely to state "Our most competitive applicants have a GPA of at least 3.2 and a combined GRE score of at least 1150." If you've got a 3.1 and 1120, your application may get culled in the first steps of the process, even though you've satisfied the explicitly-stated minimums for the graduate school itself. Seems like you can never know for sure.

flotsam is right on track. I would only add that if you're curious about the averages or how to curate a better application, start polite and professional communication with the administrators of the departments you may apply to. I received some excellent - and honest - advice from a friendly program admin last year that encouraged me to retake the GREs and slant my SOP in a different direction. The admin explained that he was the gatekeeper - the admissions committee asked him to sift through applications and toss any that didn't make the 'numbers cut-off' (GPA, GRE).

Fortunately, most of the programs I'm interested in provide averages/medians. (Most programs in all fields seem to recognize that people are going to ask for those numbers anyway). Duke only provides PhD numbers, though - useful, but not particularly so for Masters applicants! I inquired about those stats a couple of days ago, so we'll see.

It might be a function of GradCafe. People who bother to post on a board like this tend to be pretty driven. It might also be a function of the phenomenon where not everyone on the Internet tells the truth. Back when I did the CollegeConfidential thing, it was generally accepted that some people made up high numbers for themselves to fish for praise and intimidate other applicants (or to bolster their case for why Preferred College was So Wrong to have rejected them, and get sympathy).

At the PhD level, as long as your numbers aren't bad, fit is more likely to matter anyway. I had a friend a few years ago, who had excellent research experience and recommendations but mediocre grades and a lowish GRE, apply to 10 programs and get rejected by all except the most prestigious two of them (both of which were top 10 in her field).

The common refrain really appears to be that quantitative components can only get you so far. And averages are still only averages - it might be more helpful if programs provided ranges. Someone with a 3.5/1170 who wrote an excellent SOP and appears to be a perfect fit would likely be accepted over someone with a 3.7/1250, mediocre SOP, and questionable fit.

[flotsam]

Cunni, the college's initial (and probably highest) recommended scores for potential applicants come from the list of early acceptances they filter through and offer admission to. That way, they can sort through the brightest and the best and use their scores to report to the ed. organizations and media and receive their place on the ranking list. The "others," meaning the ones who are not offered early admission, are either rejected, waitlisted, or moved to the piles of applications that will be reviewed during the normal time in Jan-March. But by then, the test scores and GPA's of those candidates who accepted early admission have already been submitted to the folks who crunch numbers and create lists of rankings. These averages may be modified later on to reflect all of the scores of the students making up the incoming class, but, like I said, the initial info with the higher test scores has already been used and students are hungry for that info so that they can choose among the highest ranked schools to send their applications to. This process happens long before the students begin to sort through which schools they want to investigate for matriculation so the rankings comes from the information from the past 1+ years.

To complicate things for potential students, some schools do not cater to these deadlines and do not play the game as viciously as other schools. So their place on the ranking list might be low or even absent but the quality of their programs may be very high. This is why it becomes imperative that students visit the campuses or do their research and find out as much about the professors, research opportunities, and employment success of each program. It could be that a smaller, obscure college may offer more attention and be more willing to take a risk on a particular research project than a larger, more "prestigious" college. Or a larger college may give a student more access to outside research...it just all depends. So much of what attracts students to certain colleges/programs is the result of what amounts to a beauty contest. Reputation is vital as long as it is based on student success and not something the administration may have padded for the media. It makes sense to talk to both current and former students and add their input to the mix of data needed to make an informed choice of what schools to apply to. Look at the professors closely to see if what excites them in the field is aligned with your interests.

Sorry for being so long-winded. Are you still awake out there?

Edited June 22, 2011 by flotsam

[cunninlynguist]

That is fascinating, and probably one of the most interesting things I've read about the admissions process.

The practice makes some sense (and shouldn't be that surprising), but it's still a bit deceitful in my view. It's not inflating the numbers or wholly misrepresenting their incoming classes, however it doesn't offer a true illustration of every student admitted into the program. Those numbers, if the department decides to release them, should offer a realistic portrayal of their typical student; if you get admitted during the normal period of review (January-March, as you said), you're worthy of representation, right?

Regarding perceived reputation and actual value to a student, and value as a degree: one of my undergrad professors told me to follow the funding and the fit. Prestige is a necessary consideration but ultimately it shouldn't be what dictates where you go. Rankings based on numbers alone are inherently misleading and I've found, for my field, that a few of the best and most reputable programs (at excellent schools, no less) aren't on the U.S. News list. If you ask around or look at employment data, it's a much different story - and much more relevant.

[flotsam]

That is fascinating, and probably one of the most interesting things I've read about the admissions process.

The practice makes some sense (and shouldn't be that surprising), but it's still a bit deceitful in my view. It's not inflating the numbers or wholly misrepresenting their incoming classes, however it doesn't offer a true illustration of every student admitted into the program. Those numbers, if the department decides to release them, should offer a realistic portrayal of their typical student; if you get admitted during the normal period of review (January-March, as you said), you're worthy of representation, right?

Regarding perceived reputation and actual value to a student, and value as a degree: one of my undergrad professors told me to follow the funding and the fit. Prestige is a necessary consideration but ultimately it shouldn't be what dictates where you go. Rankings based on numbers alone are inherently misleading and I've found, for my field, that a few of the best and most reputable programs (at excellent schools, no less) aren't on the U.S. News list. If you ask around or look at employment data, it's a much different story - and much more relevant.

I have recently poked around the internet and found an interesting site. Check it out: http://www.studentsreview.com/ and pay close attention to the student/alumni reviews as well as the interesting pie charts depicting what percentage of the interviewed students would actually return to that campus if they had to do it all over again. The "report card" format on the survey pages makes for interesting reading. My only complaint is that I haven't found the link on this site that specifically targets graduate school. I hope there is one and I'll investigate soon.

[starmaker]

Er, I don't know what rankings flotsam is referring to, but the most famous ones (US News) don't use GPA or GRE for science and humanities rankings (they use quant GRE for engineering). They're a pure measure of reputation - the US News people survey professors in the field, and the professors rate each program from 1-5 based on their perception of how good it is. That's it. That's the sum total of their rankings, in the sciences and humanities. No GPA involved, no school-provided data involved at all, for that matter. And the other really famous rankings that I know of, the NRC rankings, are done over a long period of time anyway, and don't have strict yearly deadlines. I know it's fashionable for applicants to bash on rankings, and the bashing is often warranted too, but a program whose field is not ranked using incoming GPA/GRE is unlikely to manipulate the numbers for the purpose of looking good in the rankings that don't use those numbers.

I'm not sure whether environmental policy falls under US News' academic rankings (which do not use GPA/GRE) or their professional school rankings (some of which do). It doesn't look like they have environmental policy rankings per se, which might be why some of the best programs in the field aren't well-ranked, because they're being ranked for a more general field like "public affairs" or "political science".

I'm also somewhat confused about the allusion to early admission - are we talking about a formal early admissions round like many schools have for undergrad, or simply the evaluation of applications that get submitted early? Because I've never heard of a PhD program with a formal early admissions round. Is this a field-by-field deal?

[cunninlynguist]

Er, I don't know what rankings flotsam is referring to, but the most famous ones (US News) don't use GPA or GRE for science and humanities rankings (they use quant GRE for engineering). They're a pure measure of reputation - the US News people survey professors in the field, and the professors rate each program from 1-5 based on their perception of how good it is. That's it. That's the sum total of their rankings, in the sciences and humanities. No GPA involved, no school-provided data involved at all, for that matter. And the other really famous rankings that I know of, the NRC rankings, are done over a long period of time anyway, and don't have strict yearly deadlines. I know it's fashionable for applicants to bash on rankings, and the bashing is often warranted too, but a program whose field is not ranked using incoming GPA/GRE is unlikely to manipulate the numbers for the purpose of looking good in the rankings that don't use those numbers.

I'm not sure whether environmental policy falls under US News' academic rankings (which do not use GPA/GRE) or their professional school rankings (some of which do). It doesn't look like they have environmental policy rankings per se, which might be why some of the best programs in the field aren't well-ranked, because they're being ranked for a more general field like "public affairs" or "political science".

I'm also somewhat confused about the allusion to early admission - are we talking about a formal early admissions round like many schools have for undergrad, or simply the evaluation of applications that get submitted early? Because I've never heard of a PhD program with a formal early admissions round. Is this a field-by-field deal?

That was an oversight on my part, regarding how the U.S. News rankings operate. I had literally just looked at them yesterday. And actually, they have a category for graduate schools in Environmental Policy and Management (I'd assume the name should encompass virtually all programs). The list is a poor one, so I doubt anyone pays much credence to it. I hope not - some of the programs on there no longer exist, some excellent ones are missing, and some random mediocre ones are present.

Both ranking systems are problematic, but I've never really had any issues with NRC - at least you understand the methodology a bit and it's objective. I think the NRC rankings are predominantly PhD-based (?), so it does little to reliably rank Masters programs, though.

But wouldn't you tend to agree that departments may skew their numbers toward reflecting the stats of their top-tier (and potentially early) admittees? It would add a sense of competition and prestige with no identifiable pitfall.

[starmaker]

But wouldn't you tend to agree that departments may skew their numbers toward reflecting the stats of their top-tier (and potentially early) admittees? It would add a sense of competition and prestige with no identifiable pitfall.

I think it's at least possible, but I'm still confused about this early admissions thing. Like I said, I'm not aware of any programs that have a defined early admissions round (though you occasionally find one with rolling admissions). And it's highly unclear to me that there's a correlation between getting your app in early and having better GPA/GRE. Is this different in environmental policy?

And if early admissions isn't the issue, I don't know how they would skew their numbers without just lying. I guess in fields where people aren't necessarily funded, you could only report the numbers for funded admittees.

The thing about the US News subfield rankings (as opposed to the US News field rankings) is that they only poll deans, or department chairs, or something like that, as opposed to polling faculty in general. Which seems like it would aggravate the problems of the field rankings. And it means the rankings don't go as deep. Being a CS person, I'm glad that they consider CS a field rather than a subfield. I think it's pretty stupid that they consider all the various disciplines of engineering, for instance, to be subfields.