Rejected from BU, but admitted to Harvard + UPenn..how does that make sense?

[gfl212]

Do you know the ranks of the programs? It could be that Columbia is #1 and Harvard and UPenn are lower ranked.

In IR, for a Master's, Harvard is actually ranked 3rd, below Georgetown and below Johns Hopkins. So while someone might get an admit for Harvard and a rejection from Georgetown and JHU, it's really not confusing as to why. Rankings.

The application pool gets more competitive each year.. which might be why you were wait listed two years ago and rejected this time.

Harvard is ranked #2 in my program, and Columbia is #5. Penn is #9 I think.. Columbia wrote back to me regarding my rejection, but they just sent me the same email they most likely send to anyone else who asks about their rejection...

Oh well. The Columbia rejection was mainly a disappointment because I currently live in NYC and I have been here for five years and don't want to leave... But the last two programs I am waiting to hear back from are NYU and Forhdam, and I don't think I can justify turning Harvard down for either of the latter schools, even though they are in NYC..

[splitends]

Do you know the ranks of the programs? It could be that Columbia is #1 and Harvard and UPenn are lower ranked.

In IR, for a Master's, Harvard is actually ranked 3rd, below Georgetown and below Johns Hopkins. So while someone might get an admit for Harvard and a rejection from Georgetown and JHU, it's really not confusing as to why. Rankings.

The application pool gets more competitive each year.. which might be why you were wait listed two years ago and rejected this time.

I think this is a pretty oversimplified idea of how rankings work...

First off, rankings are an extremely imprecise science. There is no real way to quantify and compare the quality of an academic department. Yes, you can make rough approximations based on a few variables, but no variables are universally agreed upon as markers of quality, and there's definitely no way to decide which variables are the most important, and on and on and on. On top of that, official rankings tend to lag behind widespread perceptions of a program by a few years. And on top of that, the overall ranking of a program may not be the same as a specialty within the department. In other words, a department may be strong overall, but weak in a particular subfield, or weak overall, but exceptionally strong in a particular subfield. In the vast majority of fields, you're really not going to see a huge difference between schools in the top five, and probably ten, when it comes to perceived or actual quality.

It's also a pretty inaccurate portrayal of how admissions decisions get made. Being ranked more highly does not necessarily mean that school is more likely to reject you for many, many reasons. First off, as has been mentioned several times on this thread already, fit for a program is extremely important. You are more likely to get into a highly ranked program if your background, goals, and interests fit the program perfectly than you are to get into a lower ranked program where you're ill-matched. And there are just so many other factors at work: the size of the program and the cohort they admit; networks between your LORs and the profs at your prospective schools; random fluctuations of fate.

Basically, it just doesn't work like that.

[sjb549]

Having attended both BU School of Education and Harvard Graduate School of Education, I can tell you that HGSE is a markedly better academic experience than BUSED. Don't sweat it! HGSE is awesome.

[washdc]

I think this is a pretty oversimplified idea of how rankings work...

First off, rankings are an extremely imprecise science. There is no real way to quantify and compare the quality of an academic department. Yes, you can make rough approximations based on a few variables, but no variables are universally agreed upon as markers of quality, and there's definitely no way to decide which variables are the most important, and on and on and on. On top of that, official rankings tend to lag behind widespread perceptions of a program by a few years. And on top of that, the overall ranking of a program may not be the same as a specialty within the department. In other words, a department may be strong overall, but weak in a particular subfield, or weak overall, but exceptionally strong in a particular subfield. In the vast majority of fields, you're really not going to see a huge difference between schools in the top five, and probably ten, when it comes to perceived or actual quality.

It's also a pretty inaccurate portrayal of how admissions decisions get made. Being ranked more highly does not necessarily mean that school is more likely to reject you for many, many reasons. First off, as has been mentioned several times on this thread already, fit for a program is extremely important. You are more likely to get into a highly ranked program if your background, goals, and interests fit the program perfectly than you are to get into a lower ranked program where you're ill-matched. And there are just so many other factors at work: the size of the program and the cohort they admit; networks between your LORs and the profs at your prospective schools; random fluctuations of fate.

Basically, it just doesn't work like that.

tl;dr.. I was merely stating why it *might* have been the case OP didn't get into BU but into Harvard. I don't need a lecture on what rankings mean.