Personal Website - Yay or Nay?

[NoontimeDreamer]

Hi all,

 

I searched the forums high and low for any similar threads but were not able to find any that had been replied to, so I decided to create a new one!

 

I will be applying for PhD programs this Fall and I've been wondering if I should create a personal website in preparation. I understand that some (many?) programs will google prospective students and I would love it if they found a presentable website with my cv, personal info, research interests, etc..

 

My current university allots website space to students and faculty and I have some background with html and the like, so I'm confident I could put together something that didn't look awful.

 

 

However, should I even be considering this? And if I decide to create one, should I include a link in my CV when I send in my application?

 

 

Cheers!

[Duna]

Yay.

[Monochrome Spring]

I vote yes for a personal website. It can promote traffic to your research, other than for your grad apps. It also can help you phrase your research interests and your C.V. when you know it's exposed to anyone and every one. 

 

I put a link to my website on my C.V., at the top with my phone number.

[fuzzylogician]

Yes, definitely.

 

Have a website; beside your CV, put on it your writing sample and whatever other papers you have that you want the adcoms to know about. Link in your CV and you can mention the paper is online on your website at the top of your writing sample. 

[DeleteMePlease]

Why not use a content management system? Wordpress is really easy to use and the default design looks really nice for a cv. It's what I use.

[Arcanen]

Having a personal website for this is good (for the reasons Monochrome Spring mentioned), but...

 

I understand that some (many?) programs will google prospective students and I would love it if they found a presentable website with my cv, personal info, research interests, etc..

 

I seriously doubt this.The admissions process is long, exhausting and hundreds (even thousands) of students often apply to each program. Reading so many complete applications is itself an enormous endeavour; they aren't going to go out of their way to read and consider more things, especially when it isn't part of the application process and isn't requested.

 

Remember that creating a strong application when you're limited to a certain amount of words in your statement, a certain page length in your CV etc is a skill in and of itself. Giving undue considerations to students who happen to have websites when it isn't requested would be unfair to applicants who strictly abide by the application size restrictions.

 

Don't get me wrong, it won't hurt. But it isn't really likely to increase your chances either, both since it's extremely unlikely that anyone will look at it. Personally, I'm not sure the stress of creating a picture perfect website with documents containing perfect grammar etc would be worth it considering it's not an expected part of the application process. If your programs specify about personal websites, you can choose to have one, but such programs will be few and far between (and it's unlikely to affect your chances much at all even in programs that do say you can list a website if you so choose).

[fuzzylogician]

I seriously doubt this.The admissions process is long, exhausting and hundreds (even thousands) of students often apply to each program. Reading so many complete applications is itself an enormous endeavour; they aren't going to go out of their way to read and consider more things, especially when it isn't part of the application process and isn't requested.

 

<snip>

Don't get me wrong, it won't hurt. But it isn't really likely to increase your chances either, both since it's extremely unlikely that anyone will look at it. Personally, I'm not sure the stress of creating a picture perfect website with documents containing perfect grammar etc would be worth it considering it's not an expected part of the application process. If your programs specify about personal websites, you can choose to have one, but such programs will be few and far between (and it's unlikely to affect your chances much at all even in programs that do say you can list a website if you so choose).

I know for a fact that people searched for me online and looked at things on my website beyond what I submitted as part of my application. I agree that it wouldn't be the first thing I'd spend my time on, but I would also not be that pessimistic about the advantages of having a website.

[NoontimeDreamer]

Wow, thanks for all of the input! It seems like the overwhelming consensus is to go for it, which means that I know what my weekend project will be!

 

@GermanStudent- Thank you for the suggestion! I really love the layout and will definitely consider using it!

[LinguisticMystic]

Yes. In the case that you do get googled (which does happen ... some sites track unique visitors/search terms/etc. for you) by interested parties, at least if you have a personal website (and some other professional-ish sites) those will turn up higher in a search than, say, your race times from 6 years ago... So even if they don't navigate through all of the hits, they'll still see some relevant returns in a search of your name.

[TakeruK]

Some applications explicitly state that they will not be looking at anything outside of the application package (whether or not this is true is unknown of course). One application I had explicitly instructed us NOT to include any URLs at all in documents like the SOP. In fact, the only URLs allowed were the URLs to any papers we might have had published. (For this school, we were not allowed to upload a CV, instead we had to upload ~5 separate documents that would convey the equivalent information in the CV).

 

I can see why this is a rule -- they don't want someone circumventing page limits etc. by linking their SOP to a much longer online document! But even if you aren't able to include your URL directly in your package, it's possible that some profs might try to google you. They probably wouldn't do this for every single applicant, but probably for the ones that caught their interest in the original stack. 

 

But I agree with Arcanen's point that you shouldn't worry so much about having a website for application reasons -- i.e. not having one isn't going to greatly hurt your application chances. As far as I know, everyone in my cohort got accepted without a website and most of us put together academic websites for the first time during our first year of grad school.

 

I definitely think that every graduate student should have one though, so if you have time to do it before grad school, that's great -- it will save you work later. In my opinion, the websites should be content that you completely own so that it's just a matter of uploading files to your school's web server -- this allows you to take your website from one school to another and also allows you to have a much more official web address like dept.school.edu/~name instead of like a wordpress or blogspot etc. address. Another option is to pay some money to have your own web domain! I think finding a clean CSS template (there are tons of people online offering free templates) and either editing HTML directly, or use a free or cheap WYSIWYG editor like Kompozer or RapidWeaver (or the 30 day free trial for Dreamweaver). 

[Igotnothin]

I vote yes for a personal website. It can promote traffic to your research, other than for your grad apps. It also can help you phrase your research interests and your C.V. when you know it's exposed to anyone and every one. 

 

I put a link to my website on my C.V., at the top with my phone number.

 

Nice site!

[phanminh91]

I found this particular website useful: http://graddecision.org/Application_RP.html

According to this site:

 

Homepage.  If you have a homepage that describes your work, you should consider giving a link to it as well from your resume.   Admissions committees will sometimes follow the link, which gives you another opportunity to present your work and present more evidence to the committee.  On your homepage, also do post links to all your research papers, ideally in a way that allows your reviewer to easily find/download/read the paper.  The other advantage of giving a homepage url is that if you have new papers accepted for publication, new research results, or other updates, you can also continue to update your homepage even after the application deadline.

 

I found the website by chance when reading Prof Andrew Ng's facebook. He's a professor of CS at Stanford (he also mentioned having written some pieces of advice on the website), so I seriously doubt if the advice is useful in general; maybe the practice can only be found at some top universities. Still, considering that an area of one department of a university only admits a handful of applicants, I suppose the homepage may become an extra useful source of information when they are to decide between you and another applicant. They will never look at the homepage in the first round of decision, of course.

Edited July 8, 2013 by phanminh91

[Kwest]

I found this particular website useful: http://graddecision.org/Application_RP.html

 

I just started clicking around this website and found this line in the "China Students" section and yes, that typo in the begining is part of the original text.

 

"It is widely know to US admissions committees that LORs are for the most part written by students, and then given to the professor to sign.  This is problematic, because it meas the admissions committee cannot count on the LOR to be provide an “independent” evaluation of the student’s abilities."

 

This was NOT my experience at all and I haven't met any applying student that has admitted to such a thing. All my letter writers took letter writing seriously. In fact, if they had asked me to do this, I think I would have just found another writer. I've learned from multiple people that they later learned that rejections were sometime strongly influenced by poor letters of recommendation...so I think adcoms DO take them seriously. I'm not sure if this advice suggests that only Chinese applicants do this or that all applicants do...but either way...seems like odd to me.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Kwest

[Duna]

Having a personal website for this is good (for the reasons Monochrome Spring mentioned), but...

 

 

I seriously doubt this.The admissions process is long, exhausting and hundreds (even thousands) of students often apply to each program. Reading so many complete applications is itself an enormous endeavour; they aren't going to go out of their way to read and consider more things, especially when it isn't part of the application process and isn't requested.

 

Remember that creating a strong application when you're limited to a certain amount of words in your statement, a certain page length in your CV etc is a skill in and of itself. Giving undue considerations to students who happen to have websites when it isn't requested would be unfair to applicants who strictly abide by the application size restrictions.

 

Don't get me wrong, it won't hurt. But it isn't really likely to increase your chances either, both since it's extremely unlikely that anyone will look at it. Personally, I'm not sure the stress of creating a picture perfect website with documents containing perfect grammar etc would be worth it considering it's not an expected part of the application process. If your programs specify about personal websites, you can choose to have one, but such programs will be few and far between (and it's unlikely to affect your chances much at all even in programs that do say you can list a website if you so choose).

I am definitely with the fuzzy and logic person on this one...

I also don't see at all why it should be "unfair" to consider websites as application material. They will also consider all publications / presentations you gave and if you have a nice compiled wordpress blog of what you've been working on, it is very fair that this is taken into consideration.

I believe that depending on where you're applying and in what field it will probably hurt your chances if you don't have a website.

[Arcanen]

I also don't see at all why it should be "unfair" to consider websites as application material.

 

Because applications are limited in their size. There is a page/word limit to a statement of purpose, a page/world limit to a CV, a limit to additional documents you can upload etc. Not only is fitting a strong application into these limits a skill, sidestepping these requirements through the use of a website (that is not requested or stated as part of the admissions process) is inherently unfair (as is the consideration of them for the admissions process) since such a website is not a qualification for admission, but rather a listing of such qualifications (in contrast, the other things you've listed such as publications and presentations are actual qualifications). Creating a website is something any applicant could do, and penalising applicants who are adhering to the application requirements (in not creating a website to shoehorn extra information they couldn't otherwise fit in their applications) is clearly unfair.

 

Of course, it's completely different if an application lists a personal website as a possible inclusion on an application, in which case, go nuts.

[phanminh91]

I just started clicking around this website and found this line in the "China Students" section and yes, that typo in the begining is part of the original text.

 

"It is widely know to US admissions committees that LORs are for the most part written by students, and then given to the professor to sign.  This is problematic, because it meas the admissions committee cannot count on the LOR to be provide an “independent” evaluation of the student’s abilities."

 

This was NOT my experience at all and I haven't met any applying student that has admitted to such a thing. All my letter writers took letter writing seriously. In fact, if they had asked me to do this, I think I would have just found another writer. I've learned from multiple people that they later learned that rejections were sometime strongly influenced by poor letters of recommendation...so I think adcoms DO take them seriously. I'm not sure if this advice suggests that only Chinese applicants do this or that all applicants do...but either way...seems like odd to me.

 

Ah, I think that was to distinguish between applicants from China and those ethnically Chinese but not from China, e.g. Singapore, Malaysia, etc (if I got what you meant correctly).

And small-sized sampling isn't always reliable, although the website can be very subjective and tendentious. It's just a piece of advice, and not necessarily restricted to only applicants from China

 

I suppose, it's rather a caveat to give some good thoughts about. Given that only a handful of applicants are admitted, the adcoms might not mind rejecting very strong applicants for not appearing so to them.

[fuzzylogician]

Because applications are limited in their size. There is a page/word limit to a statement of purpose, a page/world limit to a CV, a limit to additional documents you can upload etc. Not only is fitting a strong application into these limits a skill, sidestepping these requirements through the use of a website (that is not requested or stated as part of the admissions process) is inherently unfair (as is the consideration of them for the admissions process) since such a website is not a qualification for admission, but rather a listing of such qualifications (in contrast, the other things you've listed such as publications and presentations are actual qualifications). Creating a website is something any applicant could do, and penalising applicants who are adhering to the application requirements (in not creating a website to shoehorn extra information they couldn't otherwise fit in their applications) is clearly unfair.

 

Of course, it's completely different if an application lists a personal website as a possible inclusion on an application, in which case, go nuts.

Whoa there. If you choose not to create yourself this extra resource that might help with your admissions, that's no one's fault but your own and it's only unfair because you make it so. Of course you should still fit all the required materials into the application itself according to the guidelines and that's indeed an important skill. Unless a website is explicitly requested as part of the application (which is probably rare to non-existent in most apps these days) you should assume that your website will not be looked at and you should have everything you want the adcom to see be part of the official app.

You should also probably not submit a link to a school that explicitly says no links, just like you should not submit a CV to a school that explicitly says no CVs. But all things being equal I'd recommend submitting a CV even if one is not required and creating yourself a website to showcase all the stuff you hope someone will take the time to read if they google your name. If you choose not to do that, you are handicapping yourself in the name of a rule you created yourself and you can't blame others for not playing fair.

[Arcanen]

True enough.

 

If it is not unfair to create such a website when it isn't asked for, I'd still suggest it's unfair for them to be used in the admissions process (because even if applicants can't be assumed to "fair", the admissions process itself certainly should be fair and transparent). Fortunately as you say, the assumption in such situations is that it's not going to be looked at.

 

I'd still argue the time and stress of creating (a good error free example of) such a thing is better put toward other aspects of an application, and that there is a big difference between "website is optional" style not required, and "absolutely no mention in any application information" style not required. For the later, there is a potential for the perception of sneakiness, which isn't going to help an applicants chances.

 

If it's listed as an optional thing, then do it, sure. If it's not mentioned at all, don't give the link. If all the applications are like this latter case, don't bother creating one in the first place.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Arcanen

[free_radical]

Well one poster above said that a school specifically asked NOT to see websites - I had one school that was the opposite.  It specifically asked if we had a website, but obviously, it was optional.  Likewise, some schools encourage extra LORs if you feel they are necessary, but others actively discourage it.  So going back to the original question, I'd say read the application instructions carefully...and if they don't seem to be against a website and you have a good one, there's no reason why not.  But in general, reading application instructions carefully helps.  

[LinguisticMystic]

The assumption that the admissions process is even supposed to be "fair" is a big one.

[TakeruK]

True enough.

 

If it is not unfair to create such a website when it isn't asked for, I'd still suggest it's unfair for them to be used in the admissions process (because even if applicants can't be assumed to "fair", the admissions process itself certainly should be fair and transparent). Fortunately as you say, the assumption in such situations is that it's not going to be looked at.

 

I definitely don't think it's unfair to create a website when it isn't asked for. For example, I had a research website when I was a MSc student applying to PhD programs. Why should I have to remove my website just because one application didn't want to see it? Also, what if one application wants the website and another doesn't care. Also, even if the application instructions say "don't include a URL" and the applicant includes one anyways, that is still not unfair behaviour on the the applicant, it's just poorly following instructions. I think the sole responsibility in ensuring the admissions process is "fair" or transparent rests entirely with the admissions committee. 

 

However, as others said above, this is not what happens in reality nor is it realistic to expect. After all, admissions committee members will receive all sorts of information about some candidates from sources other than the application package. For example, when I applied to PhD programs, there was a big conference in the field in the months beforehand so I emailed my POIs to arrange to meet with them at this conference. At one of the other schools I applied to, they explicitly gave us the names of the profs and their students who will be attending another conference just a week or two before the admissions committee planned to meet and suggested that we make some time to talk to the profs/students if we were planning to attend.

 

I'm not saying all of these other sources of information necessarily played a large role in anyone's admission decision, but my point is that while it might be nice to think of the application process as a rigorous, strict, transparent process, I don't think this is actually the case. Profs are humans too and you can never be 100% certain that a prof isn't using information outside of the application package to make the decision. And I think this is perfectly fine, as long as the criteria used by the prof is relevant to the qualifications needed to succeed as a grad student in the department (e.g. website, personality, ability to communicate science etc are all fine, but obviously things like gender, race, etc. are not!). I actually think it is a good thing that profs use more than just the "on-paper" stats about an applicant, because some people are very different "on-paper" than in real life.

 

 I'd still argue the time and stress of creating (a good error free example of) such a thing is better put toward other aspects of an application, and that there is a big difference between "website is optional" style not required, and "absolutely no mention in any application information" style not required. For the later, there is a potential for the perception of sneakiness, which isn't going to help an applicants chances.

 

If it's listed as an optional thing, then do it, sure. If it's not mentioned at all, don't give the link. If all the applications are like this latter case, don't bother creating one in the first place.

 

 

I still agree with this point though -- that if you probably should not try to "sneak" a website URL in the application information. If you really really want them to look at your URL, one thing you can do is include it in your email signature. Then, when you email profs from the department asking about their research interests (if this is something that is done in your field), maybe they will see it (probably not though, since a lot of email programs hide signatures and people usually gloss over it anyways). 

I also agree that if you have to choose between making an optional website or something else more relevant to the application, it's probably better use of your time to do the other thing. That is, I don't think it's worth it to make a website solely for the purpose of applications, unless it's a requirement. The research website is a very useful thing to have though, when you want people to be able to find out about you and your work, so that should be the motivation for making your website, not admissions! Usually this means people don't make one until they have started grad school but if you have a lot of work/presentations as an undergrad, a website might help you there too.

[NavyMom]

I have a LinkedIn account (free version) and it not only allows you to input your work experience and educational career, but it also allows you to upload projects and publications...

 

It's a great way to connect with possible employers.

[Duna]

@ Arcanen:

I'm sorry but your argument is not convincing at all because 1) you make the assumption that the process is fair or even supposed to be fair (it can be assumed that it is not: schools want the best applicants. End of story.)and then you go on and destroy your own thesis by mentioning that "Creating a website is something any applicant could do". If it is something anyone can do, it is pretty much fair.

However, others have already addressed these points and I do not want unleash a shitstorm of repeating criticism on you xD

While I usually tend to agree with your general opinion that this process should be fair, even the ivory tower inhabitants need to realize that this is an economy. Whether the capital is social, or has dollar signs on it, it is about making a future investment and you want to maximize ROI.

[Arcanen]

you make the assumption that the process is fair or even supposed to be fair (it can be assumed that it is not: schools want the best applicants. End of story.)

 

Of course schools want the best applicants, but the schools get the best applicants when the process is fair since it allows a more objective comparison of candidates. If an applicant shoehorns in additional information via a website and it is considered in the application process, a potentially stronger applicant could be denied by virtue of sticking to the application requirements.

 

Creating a website is something any applicant could do". If it is something anyone can do, it is pretty much fair.

 

Something else that could be done is to submit a 100 page masters or undergraduate thesis that gives a very precise indication of someone's research ability, interests etc. It's something anyone could do, totally fair to consider it in the application process right? Even though all the other applicants have worked hard to have the strongest indication of such things in their space limited CVs and statements of purpose? Yeah, no.

 

I've got no issue whatsoever with websites if an application mentions "hey, feel free to submit a link to a website". But if it doesn't, they shouldn't be considered.

 

hether the capital is social, or has dollar signs on it, it is about making a future investment and you want to maximize ROI.

 

Sure, but when an application site makes it clear that your application size is limited through strict limits on CVs, resumes etc, choosing a student just because they snuck additional information in via website when many stronger applicants didn't due to it not being a part of the admissions process, you're likely to reduce your ROI, not maximise it. If decisions are made influenced by who did or did not submit or create a website (something entirely unrelated to an applicants ability/suitability) rather than factors which can properly be compared, you're likely to get weaker candidates and a lower ROI.

 

TakeruK:

 

I definitely don't think it's unfair to create a website when it isn't asked for. For example, I had a research website when I was a MSc student applying to PhD programs. Why should I have to remove my website just because one application didn't want to see it? Also, what if one application wants the website and another doesn't care.

 

 

I can agree that removing an already existing website in such a situation would be silly.

 

I'm really speaking from the position of someone not having a website at all, and thinking about specifically creating it for the applications. They may be an optional component, in which case make one if you feel like it, they're much more likely to be looked at and considered. If they aren't asked for, they may still even be googled for and looked at during the application process, sure. But I again want to emphasise how many people apply to graduate programs, and how many applications are being looked through. If they do look at websites, it's always going to be at the final stages (because they aren't going to go looking for additional information that wasn't requested for 500 applicants). At this point, the website is extremely unlikely to be the make/break factor in your admission (it could be, sure, but it's unlikely; anecdotes from people aren't really going to change this). For this reason, I think it's better to just not worry about a component of an application that isn't even optional, and instead focus on improving the mandatory components.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Arcanen

[Duna]

I'm too lazy to do the whole quoting thing right now:

1.) Define "stronger applicant" because even if this is a PhD program, there are other factors to consider than merely research skills or knowledge in one area.

2.) Your tone and choice of words makes it very obvious that you have a strong opinion about the whole "sneaking" material in as if it would better your chances if people can see more of what you've written. I do not think that quantity of material in whatever form it is, is the issue here at all.

3.) I can totally properly compare the factor "has website". It's a pretty simple dichotomy: yes / no. (or true / false if you are an engineer and like to put it that way).

What you have been circling around all the time and are basing your argumentation on is your opinion about what it means to be the best applicant and what you think schools are looking for. And I am telling you that this is a very naive view of how things work (even in academia). Yeah, I know double blind peer review but come on, in a small scientific community you know who has been doing what kind of research, you know who titles their papers in a certain etc. You also know from which institution they are, who they work with, which grants they have, how visible they are and when it comes down to it all: how well connected someone is.

Now, by no means am I saying that you can network your way into being a successful researcher. However, it is and increasingly will be a factor that is crucial to a successful careers. Does having a well maintained website show that you understood this? – Maybe.

Does not having one if 80% of the other strong applicants have one show that you have either not realized that the Interwebs is a useful tool and/or not spent as much time on your application and/or not thrown all you got in the application process? – I would think so.

Do schools want a student who does exactly what she is supposed to do and does it really well or do schools want someone who does even more than she is supposed to do and still does it really well? Another way of thinking about it... (not saying that it's true but it would be sensible, I'm just crapshooting here).

Aaaand since a lot of this is assuming things that are not known to us, or probably anyone because they are not generalizable at all, it might be best to end this discussion now

Edited July 12, 2013 by Duna