Welcome to the 2012-2013 cycle

[rkmattson]

For those of you who have heard from CIR, was it by email? And has your status on the application checker changed at all?

[raptureonfire]

Dear faculty,

 

If I am going to re-apply next year, what should I do differently? Rework my SOP and re-take the GREs obviously, but would it benefit me to take more math classes at my local community college? A political science graduate course at my local Ivy would be hard to pay for (and I already have three of them on my transcripts). Just wondering if staying in school (I work full time) would be a bonus, especially if it is an advanced undergraduate math course. Thanks.

Well, I'm not faculty, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

 

Did you only apply to 4 schools?  That might be one of your big problems right there ... that is a very narrow range of options.  Many of us applied to 10+ schools, with some people as high as 15.  It's costly and time consuming, but you have to know that the deck is stacked against you, even if you are an extremely strong candidate.

 

So, that's my suggestion - expand your list of applications to more schools.

[Mnemonics2]

I'm inclined to agree with Lemeard.  It's really important to remember how competitive this process really is.  Even if we discount half of all applicants to a department as unqualified, most programs will have to decide on 15-20 spots from a pool of 150-200 candidates.

 

I hate this expression, but let's "just do the math".

 

Let's say SCHOOL X received 300 applications for its doctoral program, which has 20 available funded positions.  We could make the assumption that half of those candidates get cut simply for not being as competitive as the other half.  They may be great candidates, but for whatever reason, they didn't match up to the other half.  That leaves 150 candidates.  Let's cut the deck again, just to really narrow down the pool to the top quarter of candidates.  Alright, now we're looking at 20 spots and 75 'top candidates'.  At this point, 55 of those candidates, all of whom easily qualify for the program, will not get admitted to the program.

 

This is exactly the reason that it is important to apply to a broad range of schools.  The faculty contributors to this board also report having been rejected from multiple schools.  So take heart - it's not something to take personally; it's just how things are.

 

Well (just to be pedantic and to try to make this as accurate as possible), that isn't true about 55 not being admitted. Only 20 will ultimately matriculate, but more than that almost have to be accepted in order for a school to meet its target for available slots. 

 

So the math is a bit better. Buuuuuut really it still sucks, yes.

[BFB]

Some interesting stuff from the faculty contributors! As a thought, if any of you wanted to post some general advice on admissions in a separate thread on this forum, it might be more easily accessible to future applicants than finding it through this thread.

 

Thanks for the advice.

[Guest hopefulfool]

Well (just to be pedantic and to try to make this as accurate as possible), that isn't true about 55 not being admitted. Only 20 will ultimately matriculate, but more than that almost have to be accepted in order for a school to meet its target for available slots. 

 

So the math is a bit better. Buuuuuut really it still sucks, yes.

If someone can clarify why some schools have waitlists while others do not that will be great!

[CGMJ]

Thanks for the advice.

 

This is immensely helpful, thanks!

[setgree]

On 3/5/2013 at 11:06 AM, Lemeard said:

I'm not sure it's as much about the process being ill-suited to select talented candidates, as much as is it is about there being so many talented candidates that it's hard to separate them from each other.

 

Another way to think about it is that top programs have the luxury of being risk-averse. Say you're deciding between Candidate A, who is really solid, and candidate B, who is also solid but has one potential red flag.. You're aware that Ph.D attrition rate is pretty high (per the OSU stats linked to by BFD earlier- btw, some of the links within comparable data from other Universities don't work: Columbia, Penn State and WashU ) -- and you don't actually have enough information to guess who won't make it. So you guess. I personally believe that the tendency of people to move from certain undergrad institutions to certain grad schools to then dominating the academic job market reflects a somewhat hereditary, unfair bestowing of privilege between generations. But name me a field that isn't like that? That's what people with power do. They erect institutions to preserve it for themselves and people who are like them.

I actually think that Barry Schwartz's recommendation for college admissions - figure out what some cut-off of "good enough" is, then have a lottery, because your measurement tools/heuristics are not precise enough to measure differences between applicants(which he calls the principle of the flat maximum) -- would also be a good thing for grad school admissions. But chances of that happening seem low.

 

Also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if institutions 10-20 sometimes reject applicants whom they are reasonably sure will attend institutions 1-5. In a different field, a friend got an email from school #14 saying "we think you're going to get into a top five program. But if you don't or you really want to be in X geographically, let us know and we'll put together an offer." The same thing happened to a different friend undergrad, getting waitlisted at his safety school. I see no logical reason why poli sci would be any different, and the empirical evidence necessary to convince me that such a thing never happened would have to be outstanding.

 

Having said that, Profs Nexon and Nooruddin, I'm super glad you're here and your comments are very interesting and valuable, thank you.

[chaetzli]

Come on, Harvard....

Don't you think they're done admitting?

[BornAndRaised]

For those of you who have heard from CIR, was it by email? And has your status on the application checker changed at all?

 

Yup, email. 

[BFB]

On 3/5/2013 at 12:11 PM, setgree said:

some of the links within comparable data from other Universities don't work: Columbia, Penn State and WashU

 

 

Blame Neal Beck 

 

Quote

I personally believe that the tendency of people to move from certain undergrad institutions to certain grad schools to then dominating the academic job market reflects a somewhat hereditary, unfair bestowing of privilege between generations. But name me a field that isn't like that? That's what people with power do. They erect institutions to preserve it for themselves and people who are like them.

 

 

I had this discussion with Gary King a few years back, when we were considering hiring a Harvard Ph.D. for a job at Harvard. His argument was that, in a world in which quality can be readily discerned, merit-based hiring will be indistinguishable from nepotism at top departments. Simply put, both predict that top students will end up in top places. I'm not as confident as he is, given all of the variables that go into the process, that we as institutions are able to distinguish among top candidates that well.

 

Quote

Also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if institutions 10-20 sometimes reject applicants whom they are reasonably sure will attend institutions 1-5. In a different field, a friend got an email from school #14 saying "we think you're going to get into a top five program. But if you don't or you really want to be in X geographically, let us know and we'll put together an offer." The same thing happened to a different friend undergrad, getting waitlisted at his safety school. I see no logical reason why poli sci would be any different, and the empirical evidence necessary to convince me that such a thing never happened would have to be outstanding.

 

Speaking just for our department: we simply don't do that. For one thing, sometimes we win. For another, if we preemptively de-admitted all the students who we thought wouldn't come, we'd end up with a significantly higher yield, and we wouldn't be able to afford it.

[your humble servant]

My application cycle is over. It is a relief! I feel I should be happy to have had 2 offers on my first try. Counting my blessings I will be sticking around to see where people end up going.

[runner12]

Yep, my cycle has been over too since last week! Good luck to everyone still waiting!

[BornAndRaised]

My American cycle is over and I'm relieved. I still have Oxford to hear from though. 

 

Time to make decisions now. All the best, everyone! 

[doctoralgrad23]

In at UFL! Thanks God!

[PoliSwede]

In at UFL! Thanks God!

Congratulations!

[chaetzli]

In at UFL! Thanks God!

Congrats!! Great news!

[rainbowz]

Got into CIR but no funding. 

Same here.

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

In at UFL! Thanks God!

Congrats. so your pretty much done now?

[dworkable]

Also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if institutions 10-20 sometimes reject applicants whom they are reasonably sure will attend institutions 1-5. In a different field, a friend got an email from school #14 saying "we think you're going to get into a top five program. But if you don't or you really want to be in X geographically, let us know and we'll put together an offer." The same thing happened to a different friend undergrad, getting waitlisted at his safety school. I see no logical reason why poli sci would be any different, and the empirical evidence necessary to convince me that such a thing never happened would have to be outstanding.

 

As discussed before, an applicant viewing a decision is coming from a position of low information. It can certainly seem, if you get rejected from a low-ranked program and accepted into a higher-ranked one, that assigning a reason of "oh, they wouldn't come here" is just as logical as the rather nebulous concept of "fit."

 

I got rejected from the lowest-ranked programs I applied to and accepted at the very top (and waitlisted at those in between, no joke.) Obviously, as an ego-laden human being, I'd like to believe that those rejections were because I am Too Awesome, rather than that the acceptances were some sort of mistake.

(I know "fit" and everything previously discussed comes into it as well, this is just to sympathize with the applicants who believe such a thing, since, yes, it makes you feel better. You are all Too Awesome.)

[doctoralgrad23]

Thanks you all...

 

I haven't heard from UMD. I am waiting UMD to choose among SUNY,UFL and UMD.

[raptureonfire]

As discussed before, an applicant viewing a decision is coming from a position of low information. It can certainly seem, if you get rejected from a low-ranked program and accepted into a higher-ranked one, that assigning a reason of "oh, they wouldn't come here" is just as logical as the rather nebulous concept of "fit."

 

I got rejected from the lowest-ranked programs I applied to and accepted at the very top (and waitlisted at those in between, no joke.) Obviously, as an ego-laden human being, I'd like to believe that those rejections were because I am Too Awesome, rather than that the acceptances were some sort of mistake.

(I know "fit" and everything previously discussed comes into it as well, this is just to sympathize with the applicants who believe such a thing, since, yes, it makes you feel better. You are all Too Awesome.)

 

I would stick with the "Too Awesome" hypothesis. 

[aulait]

With the announcement that all Georgetown acceptances are out, I too, am done with this year's cycle! Thank you all for being so encouraging. I look forward to hearing about all of your decisions/maybe seeing some of you at visiting days.

 

Also, I totally agree with this:

Did you only apply to 4 schools?  That might be one of your big problems right there ... that is a very narrow range of options.  Many of us applied to 10+ schools, with some people as high as 15.  It's costly and time consuming, but you have to know that the deck is stacked against you, even if you are an extremely strong candidate.

I applied to 14 programs. All 14 were programs I thought I didn't have a good shot at, but would be honored to attend. I got into 2, which has made me feel incredibly lucky. The point being, if I'd applied to fewer, it's possible the convoluted am-I-a-good-fit-here assessment would have eliminated one or both of the schools that want to give me a chance. Anyway, 14 is probably a lot, but 4 really seems like setting yourself up for disappointment. 4 rejections DOES NOT mean you aren't good enough. For real.

[eponine997]

Thanks you all...

 

I haven't heard from UMD. I am waiting UMD to choose among SUNY,UFL and UMD.

 

I believe UMD is done with their admits and is just dragging their feet on sending rejections.  As a non-insider (who applied there and also has not heard anything), I could be wrong, but that seemed to be consensus at earlier points on the thread.  I don't remember hearing of/seeing a rejection on the results page, other than one received through inquiry. 

Regardless, it looks you still have some good schools to choose from

[news2yous]

Well I just got officially rejected from Chicago; didn't even get funding for CIR.

 

With that, I'm rejected from all schools except one which is probably just waiting to reject me and one which waitlisted me for funding.

 

Not a great year for me.

[Master of Puppets]

Well I just got officially rejected from Chicago; didn't even get funding for CIR.

With that, I'm rejected from all schools except one which is probably just waiting to reject me and one which waitlisted me for funding.

Not a great year for me.

So I guess I am the only one who has not heard from Chicago after 1 month since their first admissions.

I am sorry to hear that news2yous. I hope you have a better fortune next year. We are all great candidates