Really don't understand how they decide!

[Provincial Cosmopolitan]

I applied to a million PhD programs in political science. I was accepted to a few, rejected from a couple at least, and am waiting to hear back from a few others.

 

Johns Hopkins rejected me, but that was a long shot, given how prestigious they are and how many people want to go there. However, another school, in Boston, that is relatively lowly ranked also rejected me. They are in the "rank not published" category in U.S. News and World Report, and on the PhDs website, they do not have any rank listed either. I've been accepted to some schools that are relatively lowly ranked (unfairly, I think, given what I've seen) and one that is pretty respectable.

 

I had a great deal of trouble when I first started college years ago, but finished up 60 credits in the past year and a half, with a 4.0 GPA in that. I was in the 96th percentile in the GRE verbal reasoning and analytical writing sections, and 52nd percentile in quantitative. Great letters of recommendation, too.

 

I really liked this Boston school by which I was rejected, though it is quite lowly ranked. I really liked the faculty. The rejection threw me for a loop. I figured that it was sort of a cross between a school I really liked and a safety school. Now I feel as though I have no way of knowing who might or might not accept me.

 

Anyone have any encouraging yet realistic words?

 

 

[zapster]

I think the first thing to understand that final PhD admissions are relative - depend on both supply (no., quality, and relative profile of students applying) and demand (no. of professors activey looking for new grad students in that particular year, and the specific fit - for example a Professor with diverse research interests in topics A & B may already have 3 grad students workng on topic A but none on topic B - if he or she is looking for someone with specific interests in topic B, even a GPA4, GRE 99% student with published research experience in topic A may not make it, but someone with a not so good profile but demonstrated interest in topic B might). This is just one situation - you can envisage that there will be many permutations where a perfectly capable student is rejected not because their profile is unsuitable, but because of other extrinsic reasons.

 

I hence do not think that you should not be discouraged with rejects or take them personally (cliche alert!) - you may have been rejected purely for circumstantial reasons, and a reject by say a Rank 50 program (for example) does not mean a Rank 5 program will necessarily reject you.

 

For future applicants, my humble advice...

(i) you should research the programs you want to apply to rigorously (write to professors early on to understand if they are actively looking for students, understand if their research agenda overlaps significantly with your interests so that you can highlight such overlap in your SOP, speak to grad students in these programs to see if they can help you with 'inside' knowledge on the program, study the recent publications of your POIs and also check whether they have been actively publishing as well as actively advising grad students in recent years).

 

(ii) you cannot really predict who might or might not accept you - so apply widely (not indiscriminately - so ensure there is a good fit)

 

(iii) if you find that your interests are only represented by a very small set of programs, study the profile of recently accepted grad students to identfy what (if any) your shortcomings might be so that you can work on strengthening these.

[Chai_latte]

Agreed.  Grad admission is nothing like UG. For UG, it was all about grades, scores and extracurric.  Now, we're talking research fit as the #1 determining factor.  Your LORs, papers/conferences, POI contacts and SOPs simply show adcoms that you are (or aren't) a good match.  That's why everyone is always saying that there's no such thing as a safety.  If you don't consider fit, the grad admissions process will appear totally random.

I got rejected by a school that ranked ~70 slots lower than my highest ranking admit.  This wasn't b/c they were repelled by good stats, but b/c the research fit just wasn't there.  Looking back, I shouldn't have applied in the first place.  I'm glad that they rejected me.  Theyhelped save me from myself.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Chai_latte

[SANDIEGO]

Also in the long scheme of things, for any given school you're just one puny grad student. Should you fail to be a good fit then your professor may feel bad and have wasted some time and money, but you may have invested years of your life in something with no return. And so it's doubly important to make sure there's both the fit and the motivation to attend the school.

[ANDS!]

You got rejected from a school in Boston. . .BOSTON.  That isn't exactly The Middle of Nowhere.  It's Boston; that alone is going to get a number of strong applicants that means the Uni doesn't have to "slum it up. . ." as it were.

[Provincial Cosmopolitan]

Thanks for the insight, everyone. I did look into the faculty and thought that a few were a good fit, but I didn't look as deeply as the first comment suggested I should do. At least I have a few schools to go to. Also, a question: what do people think is better? Going to a highly ranked school that seems like less of a fit, or a school that really seems great to me, with tons of professors that I like, that is lowly ranked, e.g. in the 70s?

 

[zapster]

This is quite subjective - how much less of a fit, and how highly ranked ? It is very difficult to take a decision without knowing the actual specifics, but one factor you might want to take into account is whether the better ranked school might help you get placed in a job that is far more aligned to your interests than what the lower ranked school might be able to support you with? i.e. balance the 'fit' over the next 4-6 yrs with what you might be able to do in the next 30!

[Provincial Cosmopolitan]

I'm thinking specifically of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, which is ranked 72. In every respect, it seems great. I love the professors, am impressed with the work they generate, and so on. I'm waiting to hear back from some other schools, but I really like UMass and am wondering if I'm just being foolish in wanting to go there and not a more highly ranked one. (72 in the U.S. News and World Report. The phds.org rankings, measured by the NRC, are 61-80 53-84.)

 

I've also received acceptances from lower ranked schools, too, but have yet to hear from the "top" schools.

 

[HigherEd2013]

Ok, you have to keep in mind that those rankings are really subjective and really broad. I would never choose a school based simply on rankings.. Especially for PhD candidates, you guys are focused on studying something really really specific. A school may be #10, but if no professor studies what you want, then you won't be learning what you want to learn. I would say forget about the rankings and go where you actually fit. If that's at UMass, then go there. Someone once told me that GRE scores and GPA made up about 10% of an admissions decision. The other 90% (like everyone has already said) is about research fit.