Welcome to the 2011-2012 Cycle

[Max Power]

Claiming a Berkeley rejection, too, but it was a lovely letter!

it really was. it made me feel like there was serious horse trading going on for the last spot or two and i was thaaaaat close

Yeah, it seemed to have been personalized rather than being a mass e-mail.

it seems that way, but i bet all 3 of us got the same thing

Edited March 1, 2012 by jsclar

[grantman]

it really was. it made me feel like there was serious horse trading going on for the last spot or two and i was thaaaaat close

it seems that way, but i bet all 3 of us got the same thing

Yeah, it seemed to have been personalized rather than being a mass e-mail.

Claiming a Berkeley rejection, too, but it was a lovely letter!

Sorry to hear your rejections from Berkeley, but on the positive side you have all gotten into some great institutions, and I look forward to hearing your final decisions on what graduate school you will attend.

Furthermore, jsclar from your picture I assume you are a fan of Archer?

[saltlakecity2012]

So a friend of mine who is now doing an econ PhD at a top 5 school told me that during his application cycle he went 10/11. His assessment was that in his discipline, there are very situations in which someone will get into a few of the top programs and get rejected by the others, as there's a relatively high degree of uniformity.

I mention this because I'm amazed by how disparate the results seem to be in poli sci (based on grad cafe) - people get into Princeton but not Berkeley, Yale but not Chicago, Harvard but not Columbia... I just thought I'd bring this up given how frequently the question of how much fit matters pops up on this forum.

[Eudaimonia]

it really was. it made me feel like there was serious horse trading going on for the last spot or two and i was thaaaaat close

it seems that way, but i bet all 3 of us got the same thing

Weird request perhaps, but as I didn't apply to Berkeley and this is apparently the world's most courteous rejection letter, could someone post a sample of it? I'm really curious :-) Most of my rejections were quite bland...

[saltlakecity2012]

Dear X,

I write with great regret to inform you that you have not been admitted for graduate study at UC Berkeley's Department of Political Science. Thank you for your patience in waiting to hear from us while we made this difficult decision.

Your application was among those of the very best candidates in our applicant pool this year. Unfortunately, due to strict limits on enrollment, we were not able to admit several candidates who were among our top choices. Members of the committee along with other members of our department faculty were impressed with your application and feel that you would have been a great fit for our program. We are sorry that we do not have enough slots to offer you admission, but are confident that you will have great success wherever you decide to study.

We retain application materials for two years should you decide to reapply. The application for Fall 2013 will be available on-line in September, 2012, at http://www.grad.berkeley.edu.

We thank you for your interest in Berkeley and sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future academic plans.

Sincerely,

See? Nicest rejection letter ever written!

Edited March 1, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[Eudaimonia]

Dear X,

I write with great regret to inform you that you have not been admitted for graduate study at UC Berkeley's Department of Political Science. Thank you for your patience in waiting to hear from us while we made this difficult decision.

Your application was among those of the very best candidates in our applicant pool this year. Unfortunately, due to strict limits on enrollment, we were not able to admit several candidates who were among our top choices. Members of the committee along with other members of our department faculty were impressed with your application and feel that you would have been a great fit for our program. We are sorry that we do not have enough slots to offer you admission, but are confident that you will have great success wherever you decide to study.

We retain application materials for two years should you decide to reapply. The application for Fall 2013 will be available on-line in September, 2012, at http://www.grad.berkeley.edu.

We thank you for your interest in Berkeley and sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future academic plans.

Sincerely,

See? Nicest rejection letter ever written!

Oh my, that is incredibly nice! Now I wish I'd applied there.

[Max Power]

So a friend of mine who is now doing an econ PhD at a top 5 school told me that during his application cycle he went 10/11. His assessment was that in his discipline, there are very situations in which someone will get into a few of the top programs and get rejected by the others, as there's a relatively high degree of uniformity.

I mention this because I'm amazed by how disparate the results seem to be in poli sci (based on grad cafe) - people get into Princeton but not Berkeley, Yale but not Chicago, Harvard but not Columbia... I just thought I'd bring this up given how frequently the question of how much fit matters pops up on this forum.

i think only one person (carousel) ran the table on programs they applied to. I get a chuckle every time i look at adblanche's signature. We both applied to a bunch of the same programs and both had very successful cycles and yet not a single program made offers to both of us. To me, this makes a very strong case for fit mattering more in political science than in econ where if you can't get into one of the top programs, you are a long shot for any of them and they are all fighting for the exact same applicants

Also, that is the same letter I got from Berkeley. So much for personalization...

edit: @grantman big archer fan

Edited March 1, 2012 by jsclar

[RWBG]

So a friend of mine who is now doing an econ PhD at a top 5 school told me that during his application cycle he went 10/11. His assessment was that in his discipline, there are very situations in which someone will get into a few of the top programs and get rejected by the others, as there's a relatively high degree of uniformity.

I mention this because I'm amazed by how disparate the results seem to be in poli sci (based on grad cafe) - people get into Princeton but not Berkeley, Yale but not Chicago, Harvard but not Columbia... I just thought I'd bring this up given how frequently the question of how much fit matters pops up on this forum.

I think a huge difference is the weighting of things like the SOP. In econ, a lot is dependent on math courses/grades; if you have a bunch of courses in real analysis with A+ grades, chances are you'll do well. Letters I think are weighted a bit less as well, especially given that a lot of econ people end up with letter writers who observed their performance in test-based coursework, so the letters may not be as informative. So basically, all the soft factors are weighted much higher in polisci (writing samples aren't required for most econ programs as well) so you end up with a huge amount of variance.

Edit: So I think that jsclar's point about fit being weighted higher in polisci is true too, but my point is more than that. I think in polisci, adcoms tend to think that soft factors are more informative of potential performance than factors like GRE/coursework, in part because there's a great deal of heterogeneity in the courses people take, and because what courses tell you about potential performance is heavily dependent on the kind of work you're interested in doing. Contrastingly, in economics, I think one of the biggest issues they have is students coming in who can't hack micro theory, and facility with mathematics is essential to being able to do work that economists think is good.

Edited March 1, 2012 by RWBG

[shavasana]

I get a chuckle every time i look at adblanche's signature. We both applied to a bunch of the same programs and both had very successful cycles and yet not a single program made offers to both of us.

I have thought the same thing! And I'll be honest, I was surprised I didn't get into Columbia (going into the cycle I thought that was where I had a really good fit AND one of my LORs taught there for a decade). But in the end, I'm just so excited to have the options I do.

Now, I'm driving myself nuts comparing programs. I have multiple spreadsheets. ...and they're color coded. [if you can't tell, if you looked up the definition of Type A in the dictionary, you'd see my picture. haha ]

[saltlakecity2012]

I have thought the same thing! And I'll be honest, I was surprised I didn't get into Columbia (going into the cycle I thought that was where I had a really good fit AND one of my LORs taught there for a decade). But in the end, I'm just so excited to have the options I do.

Now, I'm driving myself nuts comparing programs. I have multiple spreadsheets. ...and they're color coded. [if you can't tell, if you looked up the definition of Type A in the dictionary, you'd see my picture. haha ]

Man, do I feel you. I didn't get into Berkeley, where I thought (and apparently they agreed) that I had a really good shot based on fit, approach, etc. And Columbia, too, based on fit as well as my having 2 LORs from professors there!

And about the spreadsheets... I don't think I need to comment. You all know how OCD I am by now

[iwouldpreferanonymity]

Now, I'm driving myself nuts comparing programs. I have multiple spreadsheets. ...and they're color coded. [if you can't tell, if you looked up the definition of Type A in the dictionary, you'd see my picture. haha ]

I thought about doing this for a while, but decided to use a low tech approach instead. I placed, in a hallway, a large map of the United States. I put large pins in the city of each college to which I was accepted. Next to the pins, I have placed large sticky notes where I write down the pros and cons of each school as they come to me. This is probably not the most effective means of comparing programs, but it gives the whole process a road-trip-esque feel.

[Max Power]

Edit: So I think that jsclar's point about fit being weighted higher in polisci is true too, but my point is more than that. I think in polisci, adcoms tend to think that soft factors are more informative of potential performance than factors like GRE/coursework, in part because there's a great deal of heterogeneity in the courses people take, and because what courses tell you about potential performance is heavily dependent on the kind of work you're interested in doing. Contrastingly, in economics, I think one of the biggest issues they have is students coming in who can't hack micro theory, and facility with mathematics is essential to being able to do work that economists think is good.

i agree that in econ there are a lot more objective bench marks like doing well in real analysis that track with success in top 5 departments and poli sci applications are more objective, but i still can't convince myself that this mythical concept of "fit" isn't the thing. i'm sorry to fall back on the comparison of adblanche and myself, but i can't believe our apps were that radically different. i have to think we both had strong SOPs, LORs and writing samples to have any of the offers we got. All that i'm left with then is fit.

Fit is also an unfortunate 2 way street. I thought i had a great fit at berkeley. They have a lot of voting behavior people. But they may have already been overloaded with voting behavior grad students and needed to get grad students for different profs. By contrast, Don Green just started at Columbia and has no grad students, so i'm pretty sure that my application stating i wanted to work on voting behavior and experimental methods fit a need that the department had to get someone who could and wanted to work as his research assistant

[RWBG]

i agree that in econ there are a lot more objective bench marks like doing well in real analysis that track with success in top 5 departments and poli sci applications are more objective, but i still can't convince myself that this mythical concept of "fit" isn't the thing. i'm sorry to fall back on the comparison of adblanche and myself, but i can't believe our apps were that radically different. i have to think we both had strong SOPs, LORs and writing samples to have any of the offers we got. All that i'm left with then is fit.

Fit is also an unfortunate 2 way street. I thought i had a great fit at berkeley. They have a lot of voting behavior people. But they may have already been overloaded with voting behavior grad students and needed to get grad students for different profs. By contrast, Don Green just started at Columbia and has no grad students, so i'm pretty sure that my application stating i wanted to work on voting behavior and experimental methods fit a need that the department had to get someone who could and wanted to work as his research assistant

Well, as I said, I don't think fit is unimportant, and I suspect in many instances it can play a deciding factor. That being said, you also see some people who were rejected by many top schools but accepted by one, which I think makes a case for soft factors not having clear and consistent evaluative standards.

[PickMe!]

Fit is also an unfortunate 2 way street. I thought i had a great fit at berkeley. They have a lot of voting behavior people. But they may have already been overloaded with voting behavior grad students and needed to get grad students for different profs. By contrast, Don Green just started at Columbia and has no grad students, so i'm pretty sure that my application stating i wanted to work on voting behavior and experimental methods fit a need that the department had to get someone who could and wanted to work as his research assistant

That's EXACTLY what I thought. Berkeley was never my top choice (I want to get out of CA) but they have a number of people doing what I want to do and I think there were some things I included in my SOP that really spoke to the Berkeley culture and reputation. Obviously it's an incredibly competitive program but I was still a little surprised when I got the rejection letter. I also put Don Green down as a POI at Columbia - I hear tremendous things about him as a mentor, btw - and I definitely think that helped out my chances of admission. What are your interests, jsclar?

[Max Power]

That's EXACTLY what I thought. Berkeley was never my top choice (I want to get out of CA) but they have a number of people doing what I want to do and I think there were some things I included in my SOP that really spoke to the Berkeley culture and reputation. Obviously it's an incredibly competitive program but I was still a little surprised when I got the rejection letter. I also put Don Green down as a POI at Columbia - I hear tremendous things about him as a mentor, btw - and I definitely think that helped out my chances of admission. What are your interests, jsclar?

Very generally, my interests are in voting behavior and experimental methods (pm me if you want to go into more depth). Also, I have heard equally tremendous things about him plus I'll add that he's never been anything other than extremely helpful to me. My mentor is one of his students from Yale. I talked with him several years ago when I first was thinking about leaving campaigns to go back to graduate school and he gave me good advice then. I've been in to talk to him a couple of times since he started at Columbia, once before and once since I got an offer. He has been incredibly helpful to me in sorting through my offers.

Edited March 1, 2012 by jsclar

[kolja00]

Got an email tonight from a prof at Maryland saying I was in. I am going to decline it, but just thought people who were waiting from them would like to know. Rest of the decisions soon!

[CairoKid]

The Berkeley rejection letter was so nice! I wish my rejection letters would have been so sweet and reassuring. I don't think I'd even be sad if Berkeley had rejected me given that letter.

[iwouldpreferanonymity]

I wish my rejection letters would have been so sweet and reassuring.

Quite. I would go one step farther: I wish that every school that actually rejected me sent me a letter. NU, I am looking at you.

[kolja00]

I was hoping for some really mean/funny rejection letters. The formulaic, you all are so qualified and if we could have 800 spots we would take you all but we dont response got boring. I want to see an email when you open it is like REJECTED in big red letters, or starts "Congratulations! Welcome to Program X...jk your application was pretty awful. Please never step foot on our prestigious campus or we will call the police. Oh and thanks for the 100 bucks. Booze money for the department!"

Maybe I just have a horrible sense of humor but I would have gotten a kick out of some creative one's like that.

Edited March 1, 2012 by kolja00

[Jwnich1]

I was hoping for some really mean/funny rejection letters. The formulaic, you all are so qualified and if we could have 800 spots we would take you all but we dont response got boring. I want to see an email when you open it is like REJECTED in big red letters, or starts "Congratulations! Welcome to Program X...jk your application was pretty awful. Please never step foot on our prestigious campus or we will call the police. Oh and thanks for the 100 bucks. Booze money for the department!"

Maybe I just have a horrible sense of humor but I would have gotten a kick out of some creative one's like that.

I had one like that! Umass was literally "There has been a change in your application status.

Application:DENIED"

I later got a very nice note from the dept, but this was the official reply from the grad school. Short and to the point.....

[whirlibird]

Haha, yes, I want a refund for the rejection letters with no heart.

[grantman]

Well I just received my rejection letter from Maryland, I can say it was not as nice as the Berkley one that was posted.

[CafeAuLait12]

Haha, yes, I want a refund for the rejection letters with no heart.

I agree! It is the least they can do for the application fee we paid!

[Doorkeeper]

Dear X,

I write with great regret to inform you that you have not been admitted for graduate study at UC Berkeley's Department of Political Science. Thank you for your patience in waiting to hear from us while we made this difficult decision.

Your application was among those of the very best candidates in our applicant pool this year. Unfortunately, due to strict limits on enrollment, we were not able to admit several candidates who were among our top choices. Members of the committee along with other members of our department faculty were impressed with your application and feel that you would have been a great fit for our program. We are sorry that we do not have enough slots to offer you admission, but are confident that you will have great success wherever you decide to study.

We retain application materials for two years should you decide to reapply. The application for Fall 2013 will be available on-line in September, 2012, at http://www.grad.berkeley.edu.

We thank you for your interest in Berkeley and sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future academic plans.

Sincerely,

See? Nicest rejection letter ever written!

I didn't get that as my rejection letter...so they must've indeed sent these emails to the last few applicants who they wanted to admit, but could not due to funding issues.

[Carousel]

i think only one person (carousel) ran the table on programs they applied to. I get a chuckle every time i look at adblanche's signature. We both applied to a bunch of the same programs and both had very successful cycles and yet not a single program made offers to both of us. To me, this makes a very strong case for fit mattering more in political science than in econ where if you can't get into one of the top programs, you are a long shot for any of them and they are all fighting for the exact same applicants

Also, that is the same letter I got from Berkeley. So much for personalization...

edit: @grantman big archer fan

I do think that the importance of fit varies not only by department, but also based on the individual applying. I have pretty mainstream research interests (public opinion and behavior and the connection between the masses & elites), which I think lessened how much fit mattered in evaluating my application. There were any number of professors I could conceivably work with, especially at the bigger departments, so even if the people I mentioned in my SOP are unable to take on new students or leave for whatever reason, I'll have plenty of reasonable fallback options. For instance, in the last 2 weeks I've had about 5 professors at Stanford mentioned to me by faculty here based on my interests--none of whom are people I listed I'd want to work with. I think people with more interesting and specific research interests are more likely to be admitted or rejected on the basis of fit.

Just my two cents added to the fit debate.