On How Grad Committees Select Applicants:

[obsessovernothing]

I found this post on a psychology forum and liked it a lot. So I ask the author, QxV, if I could post it here and fortunately he said yes (read street credit and a big fat thank you, QxV!).

While I have reservations on how graduate committees assess and rank the first three criteria (my gre scores where obscenely low- in fact, so low if I were to tell you, you'd probably throw up-- and still managed several PhD acceptances), I totally and wholeheartedly agree with number four and five.

So here it goes, a behind the scene look into how grad committees select applicants:

"1) Application piles are thinned using quantitative criteria - those with low GPAs, GREs, get weeded out.

2) Applicants are further eliminated based on how much research experience they have - lack of experience means you're out.

3) A number of applicants are selected based on their personal statement and recommendations - this still leaves a sizable number of applications to deal with

Thus,

4) Faculty meet in a conference room, each equipped with a bow and arrow. The program chair gives the signal, and throws all the applications in the air. The faculty fire their arrows simultaneously, and applicants whose files get hit are called up for interviews.

5) To decide who gets offers, the faculty are given a series of challenges. These range from challenges of skill (e.g., who can perform an ANOVA by hand the quickest), to games of chance (e.g., winning a dice roll while juggling bowls of gold fish - the person who rolls the highest and comes within half a standard deviation of the average number of goldfish in each bowl wins). Based on their performance, faculty then get assigned priority to choose who they would like to invite to the program.

As you can see, there is a lot of randomness in the selection process, especially in the latter stages. As such, I would advise you to apply to multiple programs.

p.s., the bold phrases are meant to be taken seriously."

Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

[3point14]

I have a close friend who is on an admissions committee, and this is pretty accurate. With regard to low GRE, if you have other redeeming qualities (lots of research experience, spectacular LoRs, etc) things like low GRE or GPA (as was my case) can be overlooked. I was invited to interview several places, and the whole interview process is what seems to be the most random and subjective to me.

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

You should probably look through some old threads from earlier this year (January '12/December-ish '11). We had some in-depth discussions between the fall 2012 cohort about all these kinds of questions that the F 2013 cohort is going to be bringing up.

[Darth.Vegan]

I am working on getting a GRE score to match my GPA (3.95). Everything else is in order and hopefully I am applying to enough programs to get 2-3 offers. I hope so anyway, my greatest fear is not getting in anywhere!

[QxV]

I am working on getting a GRE score to match my GPA (3.95). Everything else is in order and hopefully I am applying to enough programs to get 2-3 offers. I hope so anyway, my greatest fear is not getting in anywhere!

I studied for about an hour a day for 4 months, and did well (1500 based on the old system). I'm pretty sure anyone who studies that much can do the same! I would also strongly suggest getting multiple people to read your statement of purpose. My adviser read most of my drafts, and as wonderful as she is, my statement may have ended up reflecting her personal tastes (vs. a combination of what various faculty think it should be like).

Edited April 23, 2012 by QxV

[Darth.Vegan]

Thanks for the suggestions, I already have about 7 or 8 faculty that have offered to look over my SOP and I will be taking them up on those offers.