Imagining the Committee

[doobiebrothers]

Does anyone else engage in endless imaginary committee meetings, where you analyze your application as though you are the committee? I'm in the weird situation of having been on the committee of the department to which I'm applying, and I know the people and the process almost too well (I have seen the sausage being made, my friends, and it is ugly.)

 

So I sit almost every day since i hit the submit button and  play the committee in my head:

 

Does doobie make it past the first round?

158 applicants, 6 slots, 6 subfields

 

about 50 don't have the grades, gre's, sop to be considered, so they go (doobie is fine) (this is all sorted out in the first week of january)

 

108 to go, give them to two readers, who scale them from 1-4, 4 being the highest, based on 4 different criteria

readers are: professors, and sometimes two students, sometimes the dean (6-10 people)

these apps are read the second week of january

1. academic accomplishment (grades, GRE)

2. research potential (SOP, letters, writing sample)

3. leadership, extracurric (small part, but matters)

4. "personality" (Do I want to be stuck with this person for the next 6 years?)

 

I've got weak-ish grades in my MA but very strong in my BA and GRE, so maybe a 3 academically

In my own head I think I have research potential, but who knows what the committee will say? maybe if i'm lucky a 3.5

lot's of volunteering, particularly tutoring/teaching. maybe a 3.5 or four

personality gets tricky. the adcom REALLY knows me well--did I make a good impression? will this backfire? depending on who reads it, a 3.0 or a 3.5? could I dare hope for a 4?

 

at this point i probably average a 3.5-3.75, depending on how nice my two readers are (pure luck). then the office secretary puts together a ranked excel sheet, at this point NOT split by sub-field. bottom probably 25 people are almost automatically out, unless they are URM. 

 

it's now the first week of february, and the application goes to chair of subfield (in my case my POI, who is also my letter writer); chair picks the top 5 people for the subfield from the spreadsheet

 

committee has the first actual in-person meeting at this point (first week of feb, probably a friday) where they hash the top 30 picks and reduce them to maybe 10, maybe 15. This is where the politics starts, and the nitpicking gets ugly. This is where I'm afraid I will come under scrutiny for a few B's that I got in grad school. Granted these were in very, very tough classes (advanced coursework in the world's second hardest language) but in the face of 30 other perfect candidates this may be enough to sink me. I also have a few small-ish errors on my SOP; again, in the face of perfection, this might be the straw that breaks my back. This is where my prof will need to "fight for me on committee," where alliances are made and broken.

 

If i make it into the top 15 (about 2 for each subfield, give or take) now it comes down to the question of which subfield gets people this year (last year mine took two, so it does not look good for me) and which advisor gets a new student (mine took one three years ago, so maybe this year will be the year). This is all hashed out in the second in-person meeting, maybe the wednesday of the second week of february, and this meeting is a doozie. 

 

Then the chosen six go to the dean of the entire school, who (usually) rubber stamps the picks--unless GRE or GPA is super low (below 3.3, below 65%)

 

If you make it into one of the chosen 6, your POI will probably email you and let you know "congrats!" by the third week of february, at which point you have pulled out all of your hair and either gained or lost 15 pounds, give or take 5 pounds (ahem, cough cough, must stop eating Macdo as I cry into my SOP). And if not, the radio silence that lasts until march 1 is a good indicator that all of your hopes and dreams--at least for this round--are dead.

 

Please tell me you guys do this too?

 

[HicklePickle]

Uhm. I didn't do that... until now. Your post has made me even more depressed. My GPA is apparently super lower (below 3.3) and I probably rank a 1 or 2 based on your criteria.

I pictured my application being considered individually, like the unique snowflake that I pretend I am. Picturing it in a pile of perfection makes it worse.

I wish I hadn't read this post.

[doobiebrothers]

remember this is for one very specific humanities program at one very specific university. I have no idea at all what other adcoms look like, so please don't be sad! If you explain the mitigating circumstances of the 3.3 that actually can help you--they LOVE to see those explanation paragraphs, it makes you stand out, and it gives you a closer read on the adcom. Like the moron that I am, I forgot to take my own advice this year, and didn't include a grades explanation, which probably would have really, really helped. Also, depending on the size of your department and the number of applicants, you really might get an individual "unique snowflake" consideration. What the hell do I know? Please don't be depressed because of my post! I'm sorry

[ProfMoriarty]

So what's the world's second hardest language?

[doobiebrothers]

depends on where you look; some people say arabic, some people say chinese, i've even read greek

 

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/102774/8399031.html

[Loric]

This is why I'm thankful to be applying to a program on rolling admissions. I know my file is being looked at on its own.

[Sarah Bee]

So depressing. Particularly the part where you mentioned that the committee starts nitpicking the Bs that one scores in some of the subjects. My overall performance was way too good and I outperformed 85 students (I was among the top three) with a GPA of 3.7 but I had some Bs in my final year. And when I think of other applications with 3.9 GPAs, etc. being compared to mine, I imagine my application sent to the list of rejected applications. I get too discouraged and pessimistic. Every time someone tells me they have not been selected, my eyes well up with tears. This is absolutely torturesome! 

Edited January 11, 2014 by Sarah Bee

[MadtownJacket]

That's really interesting to see how some committees go through applications.  I read a book in high school that also portrayed the application process from an adcom member's perspective, and it wasn't anything like the above.

 

I'm not sure if the programs I applied to have "rolling admissions", but I got interview invites within two weeks of pressing the "submit" button, and I'm really glad that my application wasn't compared with everyone else at the same time.

[JillUMASS]

Good god, I'm not even applying this year (actually just about to start my MA) and this thread has made me a nervous wreck! Very enlightening though.

[Brisingamen]

That's interesting, doobie. I have no real idea of how an adcomm works -- but oddly enough, what you describe is roughly what I've imagined, just not in such excruciating detail!

[Loric]

So depressing. Particularly the part where you mentioned that the committee starts nitpicking the Bs that one scores in some of the subjects. My overall performance was way too good and I outperformed 85 students (I was among the top three) with a GPA of 3.7 but I had some Bs in my final year. And when I think of other applications with 3.9 GPAs, etc. being compared to mine, I imagine my application sent to the list of rejected applications. I get too discouraged and pessimistic. Every time someone tells me they have not been selected, my eyes well up with tears. This is absolutely torturesome! 

 

Just remember, some of those 3.9's will not be able to write to save their lives and will come off as people they don't want to work with either.

 

The advice I've gotten and given over the years is that the adcomm is made up of the people in your profession and academia in general. Think of how varied this group is. Now force them together to make a decision.

 

You'll be surprised at who is in your corner going to bat for you. For every prestige whore there's typically at least one "emotional buyer" who wont let the sob story with terrible scores be ignored. Play to your strengths when applying and hope you come off as interesting to a wide swath of people.

 

And for god's sake, don't write "ever since I was a child.."

[Loric]

Also.. this isn't meant to be mean spirited.. but just look at the "oops" moments that get posted nearly daily on this forum.

 

In the hundred or so apps, there's lots of "oops" moments. Things completely wrong, not able to be scored on the rubric due to incorrect submission, etc..

 

Much of your competition is going to self-eliminate. This doesn't mean your typo on page 15 of a 35 page writing sample will sink you.. but honestly look at the huge mistakes people are making and posting about. Then consider all the people who are oblivious to the fact that they made similar mistakes.

[NOWAYNOHOW]

I've seen the rubric sheets given to faculty during the committee meetings and the knowledge of how things are ranked has haunted me ever since.  Sure, it makes me feel better that my most glaring weakness is not generally an issue for my discipline, but that doesn't make the whole process any less terrifying.

 

I'm prone to anxiety, but I have to remind myself that I am my harshest critic.  I think the same goes for most applicants, at least those with decent self-knowledge and similarly anxious tendencies.  We will always fixate on the things we've done wrong, but not give nearly enough weight to our successes.  So, yeah, the committee is going to frown upon my Q GRE, and probably notice I'm missing two punctuation marks in my SOP, but I have to also hope that they will be impressed by my accomplishments and inspired by my proposal. 

 

So don't beat yourself up during these imaginary committee meetings.  No matter what you think, your imaginary committee is probably a lot less forgiving than the ones your applications will face in real life.

Edited January 11, 2014 by NOWAYNOHOW

[K80laf]

If you are an anxious person, I do not recommend watching the movie "Admissions" with Tina Fey and Paul Rudd! haha.

[hj2012]

Wow -- really informative peek at the admissions committee.  Can't say I've spent too much time imagining how my own application is looked at (been trying not to think too much about it), but your adcomm experience jives with how my adviser described it at my undergrad institution:

 

1. Close to 1/3 of applications are almost immediately cut because GRE/GPA combo doesn't meet fellowship requirements, or the SOP and writing sample are absolutely unreadable.

2. Remaining applications are distributed and graded by adcomm members.

3. The bottom third are slashed.

4. Remaining applications are discussed at an in-person meeting; "short list" of candidates is produced.

 

According to my adviser, getting to this point can be "controlled" to a certain extent by having a superior application. But getting to the admit list will require luck, as slots are dependent on adviser availability, subfield, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm sure this is really specific to my particular field and shouldn't be taken as representative of how all adcomms function.

Edited January 13, 2014 by hj2012

[doobiebrothers]

Wow -- really informative peek at the admissions committee.  Can't say I've spent too much time imagining how my own application is looked at (been trying not to think too much about it), but your adcomm experience jives with how my adviser described it at my undergrad institution:

 

1. Close to 1/3 of applications are almost immediately cut because GRE/GPA combo doesn't meet fellowship requirements, or the SOP and writing sample are absolutely unreadable.

2. Remaining applications are distributed and graded by adcomm members.

3. The bottom third are slashed.

4. Remaining applications are discussed at an in-person meeting; "short list" of candidates is produced.

 

According to my adviser, getting to this point can be "controlled" to a certain extent by having a superior application. But getting to the admit list will require luck, as slots are dependent on adviser availability, subfield, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm sure this is really specific to my particular field and shouldn't be taken as representative of how all adcomms function.

actually we're in different fields (but in the humanities) and I think this is pretty much how it goes for those of us applying to big humanities departments with non-rolling admissions.

[Domino]

I keep having two daydreams about the Committee... in one, a professor runs in with my application, and as he bursts through the doors exclaiming "this is the one!" a shower of confetti explodes from the ceiling and a curtain pulls back to reveal a choir singing the Hallelujah Chorus as the dean wipes a tear from his eye.

 

In the other, the Committee has my application pinned to a wall and are throwing darts at it while laughing.

[Loric]

Well apparently my adcom somehow had the ability to write to my admissions adviser that "the consensus is.." (that phrase will haunt me forever) that they didn't have enough info on topics clearly and blatantly covered in my SOP and resume.

 

It's one of those times you point blank know someone didn't read something.

 

Like, someone asking you if Jurassic Park is about dinosaurs.. "Oh, I loved reading Jurassic Park! The characters. the places.. were there dinosaurs in it? The "Jurassic" bit makes me think there might have been.. "

[doobiebrothers]

wait Loric so you know you got denied already? or is this from last year? 

[roguesenna]

I'm just crossing my fingers that the same things that worked out well for me to get into my MFA program (my writing, my strong rec letters) will pay off again. My GPA for grad school was almost an entire point higher than my undergrad GPA (which i hope shows growth and not that my undergrad GPA was so shitty) and my VR and AW scores on the GRE were in the 97% so... oy. But my top choice only accepts 3 students a year. Also trying to assume I won't get in and be pleasantly surprised rather than the opposite. Not sure that one is going to work so well...

[Loric]

wait Loric so you know you got denied already? or is this from last year?

No, contacted by my rep to the committee. Second convo since then has clarified a lot, and there's going to be some "talking about" the point I brought up about apparently ignoring my SOP and such.

I guess I should be happy they're willing to debate and asking for clarification instead if coming to the wrong conclusion.

It was mentioned it is very common for applicants to claim other people's work when it comes to publications. Being offended/mortified by the insinuation is apparently the proper response.

[teacherplease]

SO MUCH STRESS! I turned in my apps yesterday and now I realize I have another month of nerves and self-doubt ahead of me. 

 

Great. 

[242312]

Oh god. I just got an email from Academia.edu that someone in the United States googled my name. Nothing bad comes up (and there's no denying anything thanks to my rare name) but now I can't stop thinking about who it was and what they looked at and what they're thinking ahhhh

 

I had no idea Academia.edu told you whenever someone searched for you. Ahhh....

[doobiebrothers]

yup me too. someone say my page from my school state two days ago. fuck i'm nervous.

[doobiebrothers]

so you guys this is good! the reading has started! decisions should be out 3-4 weeks from now!!