Top Research School vs. Liberal Arts College

[ewurgler]

Hey all,

I am very new to this board, and I am wondering if you guys have talked to faculty at top programs about how they evaluate and/or compare files of people who went to big research schools who have really no chance to TA or RA as undergrads, versus those you have 4.0 GPAs, have TA'f for 4 quarters and were research assistants?

thanks

[ewurgler]

sorry, I meant people who were TAs and RAs at small liberal arts, or lower ranked universities?

[Tritonetelephone]

Well, I can say that I went to a very large, very low-ranked university where I had no chance of being a TA/RA as an undergrad, and in my experience, top programs have absolutely no sympathy. They're interested in applicants with research experience, and they don't care why you don't have it.

They definitely won't be comparing apps and saying, "wow, Person A has 3 years of research experience and was a TA for 3 semesters... oh, but Person B went to a large university so they probably didn't have the opportunity. Let's admit Person B instead."

That's not to say that you can't get in without research experience, but I think it's unlikely for them to "level" your application based on that type of consideration. Of course, I'm not on an adcom so I don't know for sure

In my experience, where you had your UG is part of your application and if it's not impressive enough, you probably need a high GRE score to balance it out. I remember meeting with a faculty member of a top program last year - she knew little about me except that I was a prospective grad student from XYZ University, and the first thing she asked me was "so, what's XYZ like?" in a very condescending tone. :roll:

[slothy]

First of all, students coming from top SLACs are often least likely to have TA experience, since those programs are at the top because they have the faculty to cover all their classes. TA experience matters much less than RA experience - most top-20 programs don't really emphasize teaching in their grad programs anyway. I mean, I can see how TA-ing would be a nice "extra" to stick on one's CV, but it's really not a strong indicator of likeliness to succeed in grad school.

If you're worried you haven't gotten enough research experience because you've been lost in the crowd at a big state school, ask yourself whether your letter-writers are better known than the typical liberal arts college prof. At my big state R1, I can't think of any of our professors who aren't at least modeartely visible in their subfield, and I think (hope) that helps quite a bit. Having letters written by completely obscure profs is a common obstacle for SLAC applicants, even ones coming from really competitive colleges, and they often need lots more research experience to overcome that obscurity.

That said, if you're really worried about your faculty not being supportive of undergard research, you can always take matters into your own hands and do research independently....

[ewurgler]

I went to UCSD, an excellent, but very large research school. I have references from highly visible and very well respected profs, and did a few research papers with faculty advisers. But, at least in the social sciences (outside of psychology), undergrads are virtually never offered RA positions, they have enough grad students who need that funding--I was never involved in any research other than my own thesis, etc. Do top schools in soc expect that one has?

[ewurgler]

Tritontelephone:

I just saw that you applied to ucsd (my undergrad institution). Though I was not a soc major, I am familiar with the faculty and many grad students. What are your research interests and who are you looking to work with?

[Tritonetelephone]

I'll answer in a PM