Nepotism: dirty tactics or fair game?

[hopefulscribbler2014]

So, we all know academia is a small world and profs are friends who like to talk! How do you guys feel about applicants using the connections they might have?

 

No grad school's going to admit someone if they don't have the credentials (unless maybe many many dollars are involved!) but does it happen that adcomms are swayed by personal relationships?

 

Anyone out there who asked a prof to have a word in someone's ear? Did you get in and if so, how'd you feel about it?

[ComeBackZinc]

No grad school's going to admit someone if they don't have the credentials (unless maybe many many dollars are involved!) but does it happen that adcomms are swayed by personal relationships?

 

Is there any system of human advancement where personal relationships don't make some sort of an impact?

 

You're right to say that the truly unqualified aren't going to be getting into a great program simply because one professor pulls for one applicant. What certainly is true is that networks of friendly scholars can help to influence who gets one of very few spots, without malice or any attempt to "cheat." This is especially true in a context where you are often sorting essentially meaningless distinctions. As much as we'd all like to believe that our applications reveal us to be perfectly unique snowflakes who are in possession of objective strengths, the reality is that there are tons of students with great grades, great GREs, glowing letters of rec, and very strong SOPs and writing samples. If you're a prof who has to recommend a small handful of applicants from hundreds of applications, and you have a professor who you know and trust say, "hey, this student of mine is brilliant," that is information you're likely to see as valuable. It's not an attempt to subvert the process or to screw anyone. But it certainly is an influence that many applicants would see as external to what they believe they should be evaluated on. If these kinds of personal connections were out-and-out corrupt, they wouldn't continue. It's precisely because they lie in a murky area between natural and helpful on one hand and potentially unfair on the other that they persist. It's like the constant discussion of fit. A professor might take a colleague's recommendation seriously because he or she feels that the colleague has provided reason to believe that the prospective student would be a good fit. So where does legitimate consideration of fit end and illegitimate consideration of personal connections begin? There's no bright line.

 

This is also related to, but separate from, perceptions of individual colleges, their prestige, and the weight they are given in the selection process. In each case, I find that people are very quick to dismiss them as having any impact at all. That's a mistake, I think. What I do believe is that you should only worry about the elements of your application that you control. If you don't think your recommenders can give you an edge, you shouldn't sit around worrying about it, any more than you should worry about the prestige of your undergrad institution. But to pretend that those things aren't important because it is uncomfortable if they are isn't a useful way to think. It's impossible to say to what degree these things impact who ultimately gets in. But I do think that people who blanket deny that they matter at all-- often extrapolating from personal experience, even though they are ignorant of whether these connections helped them themselves-- aren't being productive. In a process where some super-competitive programs let in as few as 8 new students, one or two students who had an edge thanks to who their professors know makes a big difference.

 

Just bear in mind three rules that are true regardless of what facet of this process you're talking about:

 

1. This process is not fair. It does not represent a meritocracy. Change and circumstance affect outcomes.

2. The process exists to serve the needs of the departments, not the needs of the applicants.

3. You will never be in perfect control of the outcome of your own applications.

 

So just do your best and try to remain as emotionally detached as you can.

Edited April 16, 2013 by ComeBackZinc

[ComeBackZinc]

Oh, and to answer your more specific question: don't ever ask a professor to put the word in for you. If you have a professor whose voice you think will be valuable in your support, ask them to write a letter of recommendation.

[dazedandbemused]

Just bear in mind three rules that are true regardless of what facet of this process you're talking about:

 

1. This process is not fair. It does not represent a meritocracy. Change and circumstance affect outcomes.

2. The process exists to serve the needs of the departments, not the needs of the applicants.

3. You will never be in perfect control of the outcome of your own applications.

 

So just do your best and try to remain as emotionally detached as you can.

 

I think that just about says it all. I'm going to bring my own story in here. I'm currently in a non-degree post-baccalaureate program at the University of Pittsburgh and I'm fully convinced that being here and being involved in the program helped me get accepted; the DGS and a few other people on the adcomm are familiar with me and have seen firsthand the work that I've done while I've been here. I was also able to get one of my professors here to write me a letter of recommendation. HOWEVER. I don't think that my acceptance was dependent on my presence here because there were three or four other non-degree students here who applied, one of whom was on the same fellowship that I am on, and none of them were accepted. Clearly, proximity isn't everything. What the distinction between us might have been, however, is a variable that I simply might never know.

[ComeBackZinc]

I think that just about says it all. I'm going to bring my own story in here. I'm currently in a non-degree post-baccalaureate program at the University of Pittsburgh and I'm fully convinced that being here and being involved in the program helped me get accepted; the DGS and a few other people on the adcomm are familiar with me and have seen firsthand the work that I've done while I've been here. I was also able to get one of my professors here to write me a letter of recommendation. HOWEVER. I don't think that my acceptance was dependent on my presence here because there were three or four other non-degree students here who applied, one of whom was on the same fellowship that I am on, and none of them were accepted. Clearly, proximity isn't everything. What the distinction between us might have been, however, is a variable that I simply might never know.

 

Right. And the fact that I don't think the system is a perfect meritocracy doesn't in any sense mean that I don't think people should feel proud or happy for getting in! Of course, everyone should feel proud and happy when they get into a program. They deserve to. It's just important to maintain a certain critical skepticism about the whole process.

 

I would recommend to anybody to think about what a letter of recommendation is for; I mean, part of the point is to get the opinion of respected faculty on prospective students. Where fair begins and ends, I couldn't tell you.

[ErnestPWorrell]

speaking of, do you guys have friends that can get me into grad school? 

[Two Espressos]

Just bear in mind three rules that are true regardless of what facet of this process you're talking about:

 

1. This process is not fair. It does not represent a meritocracy. Change and circumstance affect outcomes.

2. The process exists to serve the needs of the departments, not the needs of the applicants.

3. You will never be in perfect control of the outcome of your own applications.

 

I disagree with #1, although the latter two points are true.

 

To the OP: one of my LOR writers had personal connections with scholars at two top-20 programs.  She tried to put in a good word for me at both schools outside of just writing the letter.  One scholar thanked her for personally contacting him and said he'd be on the lookout for my application; the other seemed slightly annoyed that my LOR writer had contacted her, perhaps thinking doing such was unfair or in some way wrong.

 

I was actually rejected from both programs.  I happened to be accepted at another top-20 program, in my opinion the best possible one for my interests of all the programs to which I'd applied.  I had no connections to anyone in the department prior to applying, and neither did my LOR writers.

I provide this anecdote simply for its own sake.  *shrugs shoulders*

Edited April 16, 2013 by Two Espressos

[Strong Flat White]

Just bear in mind three rules that are true regardless of what facet of this process you're talking about:

 

1. This process is not fair. It does not represent a meritocracy. Change and circumstance affect outcomes.

2. The process exists to serve the needs of the departments, not the needs of the applicants.

3. You will never be in perfect control of the outcome of your own applications.

 

So just do your best and try to remain as emotionally detached as you can.

 

 

Nice. I couldn't agree more...but I also read things like this and (hopefully I'm not the only one), I can't help but wonder - fascinatedly! - how anyone ever gets accepted anywhere!  What would the voice of reason say to this sort of reaction?  Like, if I know that I've got some talent and that I could put together a decent application, yet I can't realistically imagine being accepted somewhere, what do you say?  All the correct things sound kind of lame in light of this tripartite reality check, don't they?  Or is that a lack of perspective? [As I write this, Two Espressos writes in with what is potentially an optimistic answer to this dilemma, but even so, I remain first of all persuaded by ComeBackZinc and second of all unpersuaded by Two Espressos, because here's the deal: Two Espressos (congratulations, by the way!) is this other person who got in...we all know that other people get in, we just don't know how to relate to those other people because we're not them, we don't know them, etc. - at best, we only hear about them, and we try to use that as a basis for rationalizing the process!]  I hope that I'm speaking for more than my own insular perspective, here. I'm not trying to fish for enouragement. Truly. I am genuinely perplexed as to how to think of what would appear to be an impossible process, and I genuinely mean this from what ComeBackZinc is calling an "emotionally detached" standpoint.  I am, weirdly and unemotionally, more amused or bewildered than I am scared or depressed or whatever.  Just as weirdly, it doesn't keep me from wanting to apply, and to apply ambitiously. I have no idea what to make of this, nor how to reconcile it, but the fact remains that the scenario of my future acceptance somewhere seems so at odds with...well, the odds...that, even though I know that ComeBackZinc's #1, with which Two Espressos disagrees, isn't exactly the same as "the process is pure randomness" (because it's obviously not), I nevertheless get the feeling that I might as well be playing a lottery. It's a problem to do with my imagination, I guess.  Having no interest in lotteries (on the same grounds; I am literally unable to imagine winning the lottery), wherefore my interest in my applications? Is there a part of myself that truly believes that some of my merit will count for something? If so, this is even more peculiar. It would suggest that a part of myself is wholly unaware of another part of myself. Or maybe another way of putting it: Hearing of Two Espressos acceptance is similar to seeing the random dude on the news who won the lottery.  My imagination makes no distinction. No offense, Two Espressos - like ComeBackZinc I'm in no way suggesting that you aren't fully deserving - but the difference between you and randomness simply doesn't compute in my brain that is all too aware of the odds.  I mean, someone has to get into these programs, just like someone has to win the lottery!  So what is wrong with my brain and/or my imagination?  Do tell!

[hopefulscribbler2014]

Interesting, thanks for the advice.

 

I have a prof who I don't yet plan on asking to write me a letter of rec (mainly because he can only comment on my work in a field that isn't as relevant) but I asked him if he knew a person I'd identified as a potential supervisor - just by chance I noticed he'd cameoed at a lecture this person had run. I was only curious about what this potential supervisor was like in person. Turns out this prof who I have a good relationship with happens to be very close to this person (I believe "best friend in the whole world!" was the answer to my question) and offered to mention me / put me in personal contact. I guess it's just a nice thing that, whatever happens come app season, may help me know more about the program. I have a real thing about fairness and people being successful on their own merits (probs because I'm from the kind of background/have typically had the kind of connections that are liable to get you kept OUT of stuff rather than welcomed into it!) but from what you guys have said I don't need to feel like I'm gaming the system or anything.

Edited April 16, 2013 by hopefulscribbler2014

[AurantiacaStella]

To the OP: one of my LOR writers had personal connections with scholars at two top-20 programs.  She tried to put in a good word for me at both schools outside of just writing the letter.  One scholar thanked her for personally contacting him and said he'd be on the lookout for my application; the other seemed slightly annoyed that my LOR writer had contacted her, perhaps thinking doing such was unfair or in some way wrong.

 

I think you usually won't specifically hear about the fact that your LOR writer talked to one of his/her friends at a school to which you applied. It sounds odd that Two Espresso's LOR writer told him about another scholar being annoyed with him/her. I don't think many profs would go out of their way to get in touch with another scholar to put in a good word for you, unless they are actually friends with each other and talk frequently. Otherwise, it would probably come across as a bit forced and odd.

 

I definitely second ComeBackZinc's early post that you should never ask a professor to do this for you. I think you shouldn't even bring it up. I'm pretty sure one of my LOR writers talked to a prof at a potential program about me because they are very good friends, but I think it's kind of odd to openly talk about this sort of thing.

[AurantiacaStella]

Turns out this prof who I have a good relationship with happens to be very close to this person (I believe "best friend in the whole world!" was the answer to my question) and offered to mention me / put me in personal contact.

 

This is a little different than what I thought you were asking about with LOR writers influencing an adcom. It's totally normal to form scholarly networks in the way you've mentioned above, and you shouldn't feel weird about it. It'll be a great opportunity for you to have your prof introduce you to your prospective mentor via email.

[Eigen]

I think it's also worth mentioning that this isn't a textbook example of nepotism. 

 

To be technical, nepotism has two requirements: That it's based on familial relationship, and that there is no basis for competency. 

 

Really, having connections based on faculty that know you is rarely either familial, or without basis in your competency. 

 

In other words, faculty will usually recommend you for positions based on some competency you have shown, rather than just that they know you/like you personally. 

 

So there's a strong networking component, but I wouldn't call it nepotism. 

[ComeBackZinc]

^What Eigen said is very useful clarification.

 

It's worth saying that I don't believe in meritocracy, in general, and in fact I think that the empirical case against the notion that success in life is a product of one's talents or behavior is becoming quite strong. (See, for example, how much stronger the correlation is between your adult net worth and the net worth of your parents than that between your education level and your net worth.) But that's a far broader conversation.

[hashslinger]

I know a few people who have gotten into top programs due in part to connections. I say "in part" because I don't think they got solely because of these connections, or that they were unqualified, but I'm sure others were just as qualified. A few examples:

 

1. Student A had was working on his MA in the same department where he got his BA. He was working in a very narrow field. The institution was really not prestigious, but one of his professors took an interest in him and really wanted him to succeed. He was tight with a major professor at a very, very high ranked program who needed new advisees. The professor made a phone call and Student A was in. He applied to no other programs because he was told that his admission was pretty much a given.

 

2. Student B was also working on his MA. He also had a very particular interest. One professor thought he was great, and she has a major reputation in the field. She went to very prestigious schools and believes strongly in "paying it forward." (A lot of people don't.) She had a close working relationship with a famous professor at another school. Despite the fact that this school almost never admits MA students, the adcom made an exception for Student B.

 

3. Student C went to a very prestigious undergrad program with a lot of connections. She was a solid student but not really inspired to do literary work. In late November she started working on an application and contacted her old adviser. The adviser really liked Student C, made some phone calls, and Student C was admitted very early to the top program in the country with a massive multi-year fellowship. To be honest, since then she's floundered and has considered dropping out. She gets summer funding in exchange for taking classes but always opts out, complaining that the yearly workload earns her a well-deserved break in the summer. She constantly questions whether academia was the "right choice" for her.

 

 

To be fair, Students A and B were "rock stars"--they got the attention of a powerful person *because* they were really good students. They also got very, very lucky. They happened to take the right class, have the right interests, make the right connection, and say the right things. In other words, there were a lot of variables at play here. I don't think anyone should beat themselves up for *not* being able to make connections like this. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't.

 

However, I would advise people to be a little bit more aggressive when it comes to asking for things. Sometimes I think that people in academia are afraid of appearing too needy or something, and I've seen that attitude carry over to the job market. Really, you're not "gaming the system" by asking around a bit and expressing a strong desire to gain admission to a program or get a job. You're just expressing interest.

Edited April 16, 2013 by hashslinger

[champagne]

^What Eigen said is very useful clarification.

 

It's worth saying that I don't believe in meritocracy, in general, and in fact I think that the empirical case against the notion that success in life is a product of one's talents or behavior is becoming quite strong. (See, for example, how much stronger the correlation is between your adult net worth and the net worth of your parents than that between your education level and your net worth.) But that's a far broader conversation.

 

Warning: I have not read this book, so I can't vouch for its validity; however, the reviews I've gleaned from various media sources piqued my interest. It might be worth checking out:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-after-Meritocracy/dp/0307720454

[NowMoreSerious]

To be fair, Students A and B were "rock stars"--they got the attention of a powerful person *because* they were really good students. They also got very, very lucky. They happened to take the right class, have the right interests, make the right connection, and say the right things. In other words, there were a lot of variables at play here. I don't think anyone should beat themselves up for *not* being able to make connections like this. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't.

I'd just like to say that some of these things aren't exactly luck. How can somebody get lucky and "say the right things," for example? People with good networking skills usually work pretty hard at it and furthermore put themselves out there. I agree there is plenty of luck involved with life in general, but that's an area where I think luck plays less of a factor.

[ComeBackZinc]

Warning: I have not read this book, so I can't vouch for its validity; however, the reviews I've gleaned from various media sources piqued my interest. It might be worth checking out:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-after-Meritocracy/dp/0307720454

 

Love that book! Reviewed it in fact.

[Two Espressos]

Nice. I couldn't agree more...but I also read things like this and (hopefully I'm not the only one), I can't help but wonder - fascinatedly! - how anyone ever gets accepted anywhere!  What would the voice of reason say to this sort of reaction?  Like, if I know that I've got some talent and that I could put together a decent application, yet I can't realistically imagine being accepted somewhere, what do you say?  All the correct things sound kind of lame in light of this tripartite reality check, don't they?  Or is that a lack of perspective? [As I write this, Two Espressos writes in with what is potentially an optimistic answer to this dilemma, but even so, I remain first of all persuaded by ComeBackZinc and second of all unpersuaded by Two Espressos, because here's the deal: Two Espressos (congratulations, by the way!) is this other person who got in...we all know that other people get in, we just don't know how to relate to those other people because we're not them, we don't know them, etc. - at best, we only hear about them, and we try to use that as a basis for rationalizing the process!]  I hope that I'm speaking for more than my own insular perspective, here. I'm not trying to fish for enouragement. Truly. I am genuinely perplexed as to how to think of what would appear to be an impossible process, and I genuinely mean this from what ComeBackZinc is calling an "emotionally detached" standpoint.  I am, weirdly and unemotionally, more amused or bewildered than I am scared or depressed or whatever.  Just as weirdly, it doesn't keep me from wanting to apply, and to apply ambitiously. I have no idea what to make of this, nor how to reconcile it, but the fact remains that the scenario of my future acceptance somewhere seems so at odds with...well, the odds...that, even though I know that ComeBackZinc's #1, with which Two Espressos disagrees, isn't exactly the same as "the process is pure randomness" (because it's obviously not), I nevertheless get the feeling that I might as well be playing a lottery. It's a problem to do with my imagination, I guess.  Having no interest in lotteries (on the same grounds; I am literally unable to imagine winning the lottery), wherefore my interest in my applications? Is there a part of myself that truly believes that some of my merit will count for something? If so, this is even more peculiar. It would suggest that a part of myself is wholly unaware of another part of myself. Or maybe another way of putting it: Hearing of Two Espressos acceptance is similar to seeing the random dude on the news who won the lottery.  My imagination makes no distinction. No offense, Two Espressos - like ComeBackZinc I'm in no way suggesting that you aren't fully deserving - but the difference between you and randomness simply doesn't compute in my brain that is all too aware of the odds.  I mean, someone has to get into these programs, just like someone has to win the lottery!  So what is wrong with my brain and/or my imagination?  Do tell!

 

What did I just read? 

 

I know we on Grad Cafe like to compare graduate school admissions to the lottery, but it's not really an accurate analogy.  The sentence "someone has to get into these programs, just like someone has to win the lottery" doesn't make sense to me: merit largely accounts for your chances, unlike in the lottery, wherein you subject yourself to the laws of probability without being able to affect your chances beyond buying more lottery tickets.

 

If you have excellent credentials, getting accepted to grad school becomes much more probable-- still not guaranteed, but much more probable.

 

I think you usually won't specifically hear about the fact that your LOR writer talked to one of his/her friends at a school to which you applied. It sounds odd that Two Espresso's LOR writer told him about another scholar being annoyed with him/her. I don't think many profs would go out of their way to get in touch with another scholar to put in a good word for you, unless they are actually friends with each other and talk frequently. Otherwise, it would probably come across as a bit forced and odd.

 

I definitely second ComeBackZinc's early post that you should never ask a professor to do this for you. I think you shouldn't even bring it up. I'm pretty sure one of my LOR writers talked to a prof at a potential program about me because they are very good friends, but I think it's kind of odd to openly talk about this sort of thing.

 

In the anecdote I provided above, my LOR writer was "actually friends" with both scholars she contacted.  I feel in retrospect that "slightly annoyed" was too strong a word for the one scholar's reaction: the person in question is good friends with my LOR writer, so while she did in fact react negatively, I highly doubt it was reaction that would have affected their relationship in any way.

 

Note also that my LOR writer briefly told me about this months ago, and I didn't really inquire too much into the specifics.  But I agree with what has been said above: 1) Don't ask a LOR writer to pull some strings for you, but don't worry about nepotism if she or he does decide to do so; and 2) Don't expect a professor to try this with anyone except close friends.

[practical cat]

What did I just read?    I know we on Grad Cafe like to compare graduate school admissions to the lottery, but it's not really an accurate analogy.  The sentence "someone has to get into these programs, just like someone has to win the lottery" doesn't make sense to me: merit largely accounts for your chances, unlike in the lottery, wherein you subject yourself to the laws of probability without being able to affect your chances beyond buying more lottery tickets.   If you have excellent credentials, getting accepted to grad school becomes much more probable-- still not guaranteed, but much more probable.

Also, the statistics are not even a little comparable. The odds of winning the lottery are more equivalent to the odds of your one vote making a difference in a US presidential election though STILL more slim, theoretically. The odds of getting into grad school, on pure math alone, are more roughly equivalent to being pulled on stage at an improv show (and most of us think we're going to be the ones that happens to, right?). Further, if you calculate the number of combinations of possible outcomes based on the number of schools to which you're applying (allowing only two possible outcomes: accept/reject), the probability of being shut out entirely can be even slimmer than your 1/75 chance of being one of the 10 people in School X's cohort. Of course, the real world (and thus the real math) is messier than that and all sorts of things, including/especially merit (it's more palatable to me to argue that pure chance becomes a little more relevant once you hit the schools's top 25 or so applicants), mess up those numbers but it is actually possible to take some comfort in the idea of the numbers game too.

[smellybug]

speaking of, do you guys have friends that can get me into grad school? 

My dog Bear knows some people who know some people, but keep it on the DL.

[Strong Flat White]

Also, the statistics are not even a little comparable. The odds of winning the lottery are more equivalent to the odds of your one vote making a difference in a US presidential election though STILL more slim, theoretically. The odds of getting into grad school, on pure math alone, are more roughly equivalent to being pulled on stage at an improv show (and most of us think we're going to be the ones that happens to, right?). Further, if you calculate the number of combinations of possible outcomes based on the number of schools to which you're applying (allowing only two possible outcomes: accept/reject), the probability of being shut out entirely can be even slimmer than your 1/75 chance of being one of the 10 people in School X's cohort. Of course, the real world (and thus the real math) is messier than that and all sorts of things, including/especially merit (it's more palatable to me to argue that pure chance becomes a little more relevant once you hit the schools's top 25 or so applicants), mess up those numbers but it is actually possible to take some comfort in the idea of the numbers game too.

 

Lol, I am amused that my post was taken for some kind of analogy or set of statistics to be taken seriously, really more of a hopefully colorful attempt to describe my feelings in light of how people tend to discuss luck and merit. Because when I hear about odds and I think about the process -- that is, when I try to mentally picture my application (however good) on a desk among the hundreds of others -- this actually is how I feel, however irrational or incomporable or whatever.  I didn't offer it up as analysis nor as something to be analyzed, but rather in the good faith that people tend to share feelings of anxiety, and thus in an attempt to relate to anyone willing to relate along these lines.  The sentence "someone has to get into these programs, just like someone has to win the lottery" might not make sense to you, Two Espressos, girl who wears glasses, and if you don't relate to these feelings, I get it, because that also makes sense. You're both absolutely right, of course, but somehow that doesn't change how I feel when I picture my application in that huge stack of other applications...so, it still makes sense to me, and I don't think I'm alone.  And if I am, that's fine, too.  As the length of my original post indicates, I was admittedly struggling to articulate these feelings effectively, and I still do (struggle, that is).  It might not worth the discussion, but I thought I'd toss it out there. I will add, however, that this ineffective attempt of mine to articulate a feeling of being unable to imagine the successful-application scenario doesn't - weirdly enough - translate to my unwillingness to or lack of confidence to apply, so somewhere deep inside I guess I actually agree w/ the merit-side of the debate. I didn't want to phrase it in these terms (because it seems like so much negative energy), but perhaps it will help clarify what I'm getting at: imagining rejections is just oh so much easier than imagining acceptances, and this remains a fact for me even though I believe in my own merit. Does that suit your statistical analysis?