Jwnich1 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) It seems like schools are adopting a rolling admissions approach, which is common for professional programs. It's actually a more rational strategy than admitting everyone at once. By taking your strongest applicants immediately, you increase your chances of wooing them away from higher ranked programs, which increases the expected quality of your incoming class. And by taking more time to evaluate the remaining pool, you decrease error costs associated with over-reliance on imperfect signals such as GRE and GPA. As the new GRE provides even less information, it makes total sense for programs to take their time and evaluate the bulk of the applicant pool very carefully while releasing decisions on a rolling basis. While I mostly agree with you, I'm not sure the new GRE provides "less" information per se. Just as with the SAT, I suspect it is viewed as a costly signal. (a contention, if i remember correctly, someone else brought up on this forum) If you do well on the GRE, it's a strong signal that you have capital sunk in the process. (If you don't of course, it can be mitigated by other factors!). GPA is also a great signal, but again - not the whole picture. The process this year is driving me nuts, but if leads to better outcomes for everyone, then I'm happy in the end. Best wishes to all! Justin Edited: to address GPA, clean up text. Edited February 17, 2012 by Jwnich1
catinthehat Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 While I mostly agree with you, I'm not sure the new GRE provides "less" information per se. Just as with the SAT, I suspect it is viewed as a costly signal. (a contention, if i remember correctly, someone else brought up on this forum) If you do well on the GRE, it's a strong signal that you have capital sunk in the process. (If you don't of course, it can be mitigated by other factors!). GPA is also a great signal, but again - not the whole picture. The process this year is driving me nuts, but if leads to better outcomes for everyone, then I'm happy in the end. Best wishes to all! Justin Edited: to address GPA, clean up text. Good point. By "less information" I meant a more costly signal, i.e. if a given score on the old GRE had x predictive value, it now has x-c predictive value, where c is the increased cost from having a new, untested format and scoring system. The new GRE thus provides relatively less information because x-c < x.
shavasana Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 i'm up to defcon2 over this continued lack of news from columbia. i get panicked every time i get a new email or my phone rings from an unknown number. if this continues, i might be at defcon1 by Tuesday. though hopefully 4 days of unplugging from the internet and trying to find snow to ski on will help me unwind I'm in the same boat. I just want to hear something from them! I want to personally apologize! I swear the graduate secretary told me Columbia would send out decisions by "early next week" (said last week). I promise I didn't mean to stress anyone out! (And for the record I'm on all sorts of pins and needles waiting for Columbia's decision.) So congrats to everyone who had good news this week and I little love and solidarity to those still waiting! Jwnich1, Immanuel Boole, shavasana and 1 other 2 2
Jwnich1 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Good point. By "less information" I meant a more costly signal, i.e. if a given score on the old GRE had x predictive value, it now has x-c predictive value, where c is the increased cost from having a new, untested format and scoring system. The new GRE thus provides relatively less information because x-c < x. I definitely see your point about the new untested system, however this should be ameliorated as the pool of applicants who have taken it grow. I think my feelings regarding the GRE are more binary than yours - there has been a lot of disagreement over how predictive the GRE is - and while I'm inclined to agree that it has predictive value, I think of it more as a threshold. (i.e. you send the signal, or not) I've seen a lot of variations on "sucessful applicants traditionally score over 700 on at least one section of the GRE" or "Applicants with scores over 1350/1400, are more likely to be sucessful" This leads me to suspect that schools see a good score on the GRE aspredictive to some degree, but after a point gains made at the margin speak more to luck, nutrition, and hours slept the night before etc. If I recall correctly the difference between a 650 and 700 (verbal) on the old test was only 5 - 6 questions - not a huge variance but the difference between 92% (i think) and around 97%. Edited February 17, 2012 by Jwnich1
catinthehat Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I definitely see your point about the new untested system, however this should be ameliorated as the pool of applicants who have taken it grow. I think my feelings regarding the GRE are more binary than yours - there has been a lot of disagreement over how predictive the GRE is - and while I'm inclined to agree that it has predictive value, I think of it more as a threshold. (i.e. you send the signal, or not) I've seen a lot of variations on "sucessful applicants traditionally score over 700 on at least one section of the GRE" or "Applicants with scores over 1350/1400, are more likely to be sucessful" This leads me to suspect that schools see a good score on the GRE aspredictive to some degree, but after a point gains made at the margin speak more to luck, nutrition, and hours slept the night before etc. If I recall correctly the difference between a 650 and 700 on the old test was only 5 - 6 questions - not a huge variance but the difference between 92% (i think) and around 97%. I completely agree. The predictive value of GRE scores is almost certainly non-linear. Variation within certain score ranges probably has no predictive value at all. ETS sought to smooth these distortions with the new scoring system but as with any change, this introduces uncertainty. The effect of this uncertainty on the timing of admissions decisions likely varies by school, but the uncertainty remains. (I'm not sure that this uncertainty is ameliorated by more test takers because that gives no information as to the reliability of the test in predicting success in graduate school. Only comparing the new scores with doctoral students' success over time can reduce this uncertainty.) That's why extrapolation from last year's results--a common tendency on GC--is likely to be less helpful this time around. GC is also a fascinating study in human response to uncertainty. Many emphasize the link between silence and rejections, but nobody has mentioned Harvard accepting a number of students in April 2010 who had been previously rejected: http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=political+science+harvard&t=a&o=&p=2. We crave certainty, even when we know that silence might actually be beneficial.
Jwnich1 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I completely agree. The predictive value of GRE scores is almost certainly non-linear. Variation within certain score ranges probably has no predictive value at all. ETS sought to smooth these distortions with the new scoring system but as with any change, this introduces uncertainty. The effect of this uncertainty on the timing of admissions decisions likely varies by school, but the uncertainty remains. (I'm not sure that this uncertainty is ameliorated by more test takers because that gives no information as to the reliability of the test in predicting success in graduate school. Only comparing the new scores with doctoral students' success over time can reduce this uncertainty.) That's why extrapolation from last year's results--a common tendency on GC--is likely to be less helpful this time around. GC is also a fascinating study in human response to uncertainty. Many emphasize the link between silence and rejections, but nobody has mentioned Harvard accepting a number of students in April 2010 who had been previously rejected: http://thegradcafe.c...vard&t=a&o=&p=2. We crave certainty, even when we know that silence might actually be beneficial. I agree with you in principle, and being part of the process this year, certainly hate the uncertainty. Just to clarify, I meant that a larger pool of test takers will (in your example) reduce c - as there is more data to compare against an applicants score, the value of c will tend towards 0 (assuming that the shift in format did not structurally weaken the test) - as the test is tested (pun intended!) I contend is that while the test has predictive value, there is little if any predictive value by score. I see it as a 0 or 1 outcome. If you put time in to the process, spend lots of time studying etc then you'll get a score that triggers a signal (a 1), else 0. Schools see this and see it as the signal being sent. (As there is strong evidence that intelligence and GRE score are not nessecarily linked) - it is precisely the disaggregation of this signal (time spent preparing, dedication, tenacity etc) that could prove predictive. This is what leads me to believe there are other factors at play this season. From what I've heard (second hand admittedly), the GRE just isnt given that much weight: a popular phrase I"ve heard is: "A great GRE score won't get you in to a program, but a poor one will probably keep you out" Does your experience differ? Either way - it looks like the process is almost over, and I wish you the best of luck as it comes to a close! Justin
Megan Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 From what I've heard (second hand admittedly), the GRE just isnt given that much weight: a popular phrase I"ve heard is: "A great GRE score won't get you in to a program, but a poor one will probably keep you out" This is almost word for word what two separate advisers who have served on adcoms at top 20 programs have told me. You need a certain level of score (varies by school) and after that it doesn't matter.
CairoKid Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Just got my first email about grad school... rejected from CUNY - my super, super backup program. I only see it going downhill from here. Probably have to apply again next year. =(
Megan Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Just got my first email about grad school... rejected from CUNY - my super, super backup program. I only see it going downhill from here. Probably have to apply again next year. =( Don't get too discouraged yet! You never know. Sometimes we pick a backup program based on stats, but where we aren't a good fit. Or sometimes, if they think you are overqualified, they might assume you will get in somewhere better and reject you because they don't think you will come (a friend of mine was EXPLICITLY told by a POI this is why he was rejected from a school). Or, sometimes, one school just sees something another doesn't. There is somebody here who is in at MIT and...Stanford I think, but was rejected at Duke. This process is crazy. Hang in there.
bodywithoutorgans Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Just FYI to CUNY PhD Applicants- Be sure to check the status of your application and don't rely solely on receiving an email. I was accepted and found out by logging in.
CairoKid Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Don't get too discouraged yet! You never know. Sometimes we pick a backup program based on stats, but where we aren't a good fit. Or sometimes, if they think you are overqualified, they might assume you will get in somewhere better and reject you because they don't think you will come (a friend of mine was EXPLICITLY told by a POI this is why he was rejected from a school). Or, sometimes, one school just sees something another doesn't. There is somebody here who is in at MIT and...Stanford I think, but was rejected at Duke. This process is crazy. Hang in there. I guess it's just discouraging to have your first decision letter be a rejection. I mean, I didn't really like the program there, but I was at a loss for what other programs to apply to because I want to concentrate in Middle Eastern politics, particularly on the recent events because I studied abroad last spring in Cairo during the revolution. CUNY didn't seem to have anyone who really focused on Middle Eastern politics. I just figured I could do some stuff through their Middle East Center. I'll pretend like I just wasn't a good fit and hopefully get in elsewhere.
Jwnich1 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I guess it's just discouraging to have your first decision letter be a rejection. I mean, I didn't really like the program there, but I was at a loss for what other programs to apply to because I want to concentrate in Middle Eastern politics, particularly on the recent events because I studied abroad last spring in Cairo during the revolution. CUNY didn't seem to have anyone who really focused on Middle Eastern politics. I just figured I could do some stuff through their Middle East Center. I'll pretend like I just wasn't a good fit and hopefully get in elsewhere. Hang in there! - fit is huge, as well as availability. Say your interest is in political theory with a focus on Marx (just throwing out an example) - well if school X's Marx scholar is already drowning in advisees, you're in trouble. The process is EXTREMELY opaque, just as Megan said.
Otherworlder Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I guess it's just discouraging to have your first decision letter be a rejection. I mean, I didn't really like the program there, but I was at a loss for what other programs to apply to because I want to concentrate in Middle Eastern politics, particularly on the recent events because I studied abroad last spring in Cairo during the revolution. CUNY didn't seem to have anyone who really focused on Middle Eastern politics. I just figured I could do some stuff through their Middle East Center. I'll pretend like I just wasn't a good fit and hopefully get in elsewhere. Have to agree with Megan here; have heart and wait it out. I was rejected by my safety school too (and a first rejection too), even though high ranked programs have accepted me. And I am thinking my other safety is likely to be reject too since so many heard the good news... You never know what will happen. Best of luck!
Kombucha Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Stanford official rejection letter just made its way to my inbox.
balledematch Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I haven't gotten my Stanford rejection, yet. Did it look like a mass email?
RWBG Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I haven't gotten my Stanford rejection, yet. Did it look like a mass email? Me neither; guess it's staggered for some reason?
balledematch Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Me neither; guess it's staggered for some reason? I guess so. I'd rather just hear, so I can move on.
PoliSci27 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Stanford bloodshed... this day sucks... Yes, it does. It's now appearing that I'll be rejected at both IU and ND... I wish better for all of you.
halfshine Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Wish everyone good luck！ Edited February 17, 2012 by halfshine
iwouldpreferanonymity Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Yes, it does. It's now appearing that I'll be rejected at both IU and ND... I wish better for all of you. Yes, I too am starting to get the impression that IU will only break my heart in this next week or so. Perhaps NU as well. At this point, with only those two schools to hear from, I simply wish to know the results.
wuerzburg Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 If Emory had their interviews last weekend should the results not be out at this point too? Has anybody heard anything??
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now