"How much does X matter?"

[lewin]

We have lots of threads asking how much GRE scores/publications/etc matter. I find these threads a bit amusing because most of the people here are fellow applicants and graduate students who, frankly, have very little idea about whether a particular factor matters or not. That is, most people only have their own experience to draw upon, and haven't been near any real admissions decisions where N > 1. It's even more unlikely that we as a group can gauge whether somebody is competitive for top programs versus, e.g., mid-level programs.

 

A recent thread asked whether a low analytic writing score matters and most people said "no". But do we really have any evidence that it doesn't? Or are we motivated to think that whichever aspect of our application is weaker won't hurt us too much? (see Peter Ditto's research on motivated skepticism)   I'd like to see a bunch of successful applicants admit to, e.g., having low analytic scores before being able to say with any certainty that a particular factor doesn't matter. I can't supply these anecdotes myself; everybody I know had awesome GRE scores, though maybe they still would have been admitted without them.

 

I'm not sure what my goal is in posting this, except to maybe make us all rethink how much expertise we collectively have about what will sink somebody and what can be overcome. To be clear, I think this forum is great but for some questions (e.g., "evaluate my credentials") it might be more useful to talk to one's professors instead of all of us here.

[Monochrome Spring]

In regards to analytical writing, I had a professor tell me that (at his particular institution and his particular program) the analytical writing is not looked at, because they do not agree with the scoring. That is a unique instance though.

 

Also, a lot people say that your SoP is a major factor. I've had another professor tell me that the SoP matters very little to him when choosing a grad student. It is, however, important for the admissions committee as a whole.

 

I agree, overall, that responses on gradcafe need to be taken with a grain of salt. Each program, professor, university, etc. will be unique. We can only offer information based on our particular circumstances.

[fuzzylogician]

Information you find Out There on the Internet that is provided by Internet Strangers should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt. That extends very naturally to advice you read on the gradcafe (and elsewhere). It's ALWAYS a good idea to check the source of the advice and ask yourself how knowledgeable that person is. 

 

That said, it's not true that you can't get very good advice here (and elsewhere). Lots of posters have some experience of N>>1 quality, but clearly it's not without confounds. Even if someone has served on their department's admissions committee, their advice may not extend beyond their department/university/field. Even within an adcom, we know professors sometimes value the components of an application differently. Many times the source of conflicting advice is posters who assume that all of Academia works like they know from their undergraduate experience at their school (and it doesn't!). However, if you've been on the board long enough or if you're in grad school, you'll probably have information about a good number of students who got in (or encountered difficulties) in certain situations and you'll be able to share those stories. You'll have experience talking to professors about what they think is important, you'll visit other universities and professionalize.. it's obviously not perfect one-size-fit-all advice, but you can find here more than just the random ramblings of totally inexperienced undergrads.  

[MsDarjeeling]

I agree, overall, that responses on gradcafe need to be taken with a grain of salt. Each program, professor, university, etc. will be unique. We can only offer information based on our particular circumstances.

 

Well said and I second this.  One of the things I love about this forum are the threads from people who got into phd programs without having a high gre score or gpa or the perfect sop or lor's.  Yes these cases may be the exception, but it is still nice to know they exist. 

 

It is true that we here on this forum don't actually know what adcomm's want and should be contacting our schools of interest directly or seeking advice from our past/current professors that have already been there and done that.  The advice on these forums can be helpful and stress relieving, but yes should be taken with a grain of salt.

[lewin]

I think these responses are all great and, in retrospect, I think my OP is a bit curmudgeonly  I didn't mean to imply that the advice here is useless, or that posters are completely inexperienced, only that I suppose there was something about a couple of posts lately that rubbed me the wrong way as being too confident. 

 

Now here is just my own impression, but I feel like some factors can only count against you and this leads people to think that they don't matter. Like someone could get an 800 psych GRE score and I wouldn't think too much of it, but if somebody got a 500 I would think, "Weren't they paying attention at all during their classes?" I'm forgetting the exact term ("exclusionary mindset" maybe?) but profs are likely, at least initially, looking for reasons to cut rather than reasons to accept. Here, I'm generalizing the process that I use when hiring research assistants.

[BeingThere]

Personally, I use all three lifelines (phone a friend, ask the audience, and 50/50 - hopefully someone gets the reference.)

 

Depending on how many respond, posting a question on here can be either like phoning a friend or asking the audience.  The difference between this and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is not in the quality of the responses.  It's in the quality of the questions.  I think most of us know that, unlike the gameshow, we are asking questions that don't have absolute definitive answers that hold true under all circumstances. 

 

In some ways it's like asking, "Does this hairstyle make me look old?"  We want reassurance.  We wouldn't even be applying if we absolutely didn't think we had a snowball's chance in the Mojave.  I consider the Chance Me questions as more of an attempt to gauge what other peoples' qualifications are without coming right out and saying, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."  There is nothing wrong with that at all.  In fact, I would love everyone to just state their qualifications so I can get a good idea of a sample of the population I'll be competing in.  But that is because I personally find hope to be a tyrant.

 

Coming from an undergrad institution that doesn't have a PhD program, and working with faculty that are years out from their experiences in grad school, I don't have the opportunity to walk down the hall and ask a professor if they would take someone like me on as a grad student.  I read the websites of the programs I'm interested in.  In the next couple of weeks, I'll email the POIs.  And in the meantime, I'll check in here to get reassurance, camaraderie, and a be encouraged by the reminder that even though there will always be star players, the playing field is probably pretty even.

[guinevere29]

I think you're right to question this, but I know at least my motivation in coming on this site was to gather many different perspectives on the addmission process and graduate student life rather than rely only on what my professors and other students at my undergrad institution told me. Like anything, the true value comes in discerning which advice to take to heart. The answer is usually a comglomeration of a lot of varying perspectives.

[Guest |||]

I don't think most people here go willy nilly N = 1 it worked for me so it will work for you.

 

At worst people say "My experience" or "My opinion" which is perfectly legitimate and better than having your topic die with nothing in it.

 

But more often its people basing their post on what information was out there when they applied for graduate school, this would include GRE cut offs, the average kind of marks needed, etc etc.

 

In the case of analytic writing, it was by far the least important criterion according to universities themselves (when I inquired to the department) when considering admissions.