What does it take to get into a top-tier program?

[boomah]

So there's been a lot of conversation on here recently about program rankings, and whether that matters (apparently it sort of does), and on how everyone applies to Berkeley and Harvard but no one gets in. What I've been wondering is: how do you get in?  I understand that they have hundreds of applicants and can offer only a couple of seats, so I guess they look at:

 

- undergrad/MA performance - grades should be stellar

- recommendations -  should be amazing

- GRE's - very high scores in both general and lit 

- SOP - should show a very strong fit with the dept.

- publications - you should have a few

- conferences - you should have presented at several

 

 

Anything else? It seems that so many people with all of the above apply and still get rejected. So is admittance just random? What is it that marks some students above the rest?

Edited February 11, 2014 by boomah

[Kamisha]

I think the largest question is that of “fit.”

 

I’ve heard of some people getting into top programs with zero conference presentations and zero publications. I’ve also heard of people being admitted with low subject test and general test scores. 

 

I think everything on the list comes into play when a committee is evaluating your application. I would also add a fabulous writing sample related to your field of study and, unfortunately, undergrad/MA university “prestige.”

 

These are just my two cents.

 

To everyone who got into a top program this year: congratulations on your success!

[Tweedledumb]

I'm sure conferences and publications can be important, but like Kamisha said, an excellent writing sample and good "fit" with the program is key. The arbitrariness of this process sucks, but your undergrad/MA school's "prestige" does seem to matter. 

[Swagato]

So there's been a lot of conversation on here recently about program rankings, and whether that matters (apparently it sort of does), and on how everyone applies to Berkeley and Harvard but no one gets in. What I've been wondering is: how do you get in?  I understand that they have hundreds of applicants and can offer only a couple of seats, so I guess they look at:

 

- undergrad/MA performance - grades should be stellar

- recommendations -  should be amazing

- GRE's - very high scores in both general and lit 

- SOP - should show a very strong fit with the dept.

- publications - you should have a few

- conferences - you should have presented at several

 

 

Anything else? It seems that so many people with all of the above apply and still get rejected. So is admittance just random? What is it that marks some students above the rest?

 

There is, as you may already have guessed, no silver bullet. Although the things you mention are certainly important, none of them is a guarantee, nor is any mix of them any better guarantee. I experienced it both ways; I applied without an MA, and then I applied with an MA. The MA was from Chicago, which for my field was one of the top departments around. My own understanding was that undergraduate grades don't matter a great deal. I had an uncommonly lower undergraduate GPA, in fact. MA GPA matters more, but again, the entire "GPA question" is really not that critical. It's more or less assumed that your GPA has to be in a certain range if you're applying to, say, a "top" program. If it's lower than is common, you had better be able to compensate otherwise. 

 

GRE, likewise. I am not at all sure that great attention is given to the GRE. My own AW score was 4.5. Granted, I had a good Verbal score (I took the older GRE, and did not take any subject tests), but I presume other applicants also had similar scores. So, it's a bit like the GPA. A high score won't get you in, but a low score may raise eyebrows. Besides, who'd bother reading your GRE scores when there is a 20 page writing sample..?

 

I had no publications or conferences, and I know many others who were in similar circumstances even though they too ended up in top programs (I mean English, Philosophy, Art History, and Cinema Studies). So, I'm not sure that this counts to any great extent. But I'm sure it may be noted as a positive--just don't put *too* much thought into it.

 

So that leaves the statement of purpose, writing sample, and the letters of recommendation. It's my belief that these are the most important components, though I can't presume to rank them in any order. I think they might be equally important, with individual variations possible. 

 

Fit--meaning a fit between [your intellectual and scholarly background, your existing work, your anticipated work, your research interests, your approaches, your letters] and [their department strengths, emerging clusters of research, future directions, existing gaps in student specialties]--probably is one of the most important factors of all.

 

Hopefully this helps a bit. 

[jazzyd]

I think the largest question is that of “fit.”

 

I’ve heard of some people getting into top programs with zero conference presentations and zero publications. I’ve also heard of people being admitted with low subject test and general test scores. 

 

I think everything on the list comes into play when a committee is evaluating your application. I would also add a fabulous writing sample related to your field of study and, unfortunately, undergrad/MA university “prestige.”

 

These are just my two cents.

 

To everyone who got into a top program this year: congratulations on your success!

 

^Basically. Fit + good work (or potential to produce such).

 

I don't know what the "tiers" are or what tier my program would be considered in, but from a numbers point of view as an applicant I had 0 pubs, 0 conferences, an alright verbal score, horrifying subject score and good GPA (though most definitely on the lower side for those coming out of the humanities). My recommendations I would bet were great, only because each of my writers had gotten to know me and my work pretty well in my last couple years of undergrad, but none were what you might call "famous" faculty. My undergrad is a well respected research institution, but nothing in the realm of Ivy or even public Ivy (the latter perhaps depending on who you ask).

 

Not listing these things as evidence of a super stellar SOP and writing sample or anything; after all, I was rejected from the vast majority of schools I applied to. This is more testimony that as Swagato said, there's no silver bullet. I've said this a couple times, but my cohort is a mix of people with and without MAs, pubs, conference presentations, teaching experience, prestigious diplomas, even strict backgrounds in English.

 

And it's very arbitrary. Even if I were to pull an MIB and selectively erase the memory of the admissions committees of everywhere I applied to last year and reapply again with an identical application, there's no guarantee I'd even get into the same schools again. Or any schools. 

[scuttlebutt]

Fit and your future project(s), which are gauged through SOP, WS, and LORs, are by far the most important.

 

In terms of BA/MA prestige, not so much. Idiots and savants reside in boths Ivys and regional universities. Adcomms know this. They also recognize that a number of issues, including class, region, and race might have limited one's ability to attend a "prestigious" program. And if they don't, if they're so blind to their privilege that they cannot recognize this, then why would one even want to attend the program?

Edited February 11, 2014 by scuttlebutt

[CommPhD20]

I'd say that there is limited value of high GRE scores and GPA. Of course, there is much to be lost if they are distractingly low.

 

Statement of purpose is huge here as is (when applicable) a writing sample. You want to prove your ability to thrive in the program. You must demonstrate your fit as well as your competence as a future academic. As you might guess, your letters of recommendation are tremendously important in this case as well. You want people that are professional academics vouching for your maturity, ability, and future prospects for becoming a successful academic yourself. They will also be more credible to the adcomm in their assessment of your fit at the particular school (this is where it comes in handy to not have letter writers distribute the same form letter to each school).

 

Publications and conference presentations are pluses in this regard too, since they demonstrate your understanding of the world of academia as well as proof that you can produce worthy scholarly material. Now, this can have limited upside unless you have presented at a very important conference (and did well) or you have published in somewhat distinguished journals. They won't be all that impressed by publications in a fly-by-night journal beyond the fact it demonstrates your interest in scholarly activity.

 

GPA comes in next and there is some wiggle room here. The meaning of a GPA at one school can be much different from another. Some undergrad schools and types of schools are typically going to produce high GPAs, rendering them pretty unimpressive. Other schools might have the other reputation, which is that of deflated GPAs. They'll be looking more closely at how you did in specific courses and how deeply you studied your subjects. This is another time where there is some value in it being high but as an abstract number it means little. On the other hand, it will be hard to compensate for a low GPA (think 3.0-3.2), but not impossible. After all, lots of variables are affecting that final number and it is still relatively unimportant.

 

I think GRE scores mean the least of all. I believe there is an arrangement in place with ETS that makes them require this for other benefits that fall outside what most or all humanities departments get from GRE reporting. It is more a fact of being part of a larger graduate school than anything else. With that said, it would be troublesome to have low scores because, of course, that would raise eyebrows. The quant score will mean next to nothing unless the graduate school has imposed minimum limitations on the programs. Doing better will be impressive and help, but you won't be able to build an application off of it.

 

This is why you see people bitching and moaning about being rejected despite super high GRE, super high GPA, and [insert big number here] presentations and publications. Unlike undergraduate admissions, the empirically measurable stuff is very weakly predictive. Of course, many bitchers and moaners reveal character traits that make it unfathomable that they could have convinced three academics to endorse them in a confidential letter...which will easily sink that other stuff.

Edited February 11, 2014 by JLRC

[boomah]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! So it seems to be mainly an issue of "fit," along with showing a potential of producing good work (and having nothing horrible in your record).

 

Hmm.. So about fit... I guess I should get to work on that! 

[hashslinger]

From my own experience, I do feel as though there is a correlation between undergraduate reputation's prestige and the institution one ends up at for a PhD. There could be a number of reasons for this--better schools might offer more preparation for getting into grad school and more exposure to cutting-edge research; students who go to more elite schools have already been successful at the admissions game; and, finally, though it might be unpopular to admit this here, adcoms are probably more impressed with a BA from Swarthmore than one from U of Texlahoma State.

 

There's nothing to say that the person from Texlahoma State *can't* get admitted; but they are probably going to have to stand out from the crowd. (I hope there's really not a school named Texlahoma State.)

 

I don't go to an Ivy, but I know a lot of people who go to the very top schools--many of whom were accepted the same year that I was turned down. Based on what I've seen and experienced, the people who were successful did indeed have stellar profiles all around. They had high test scores across the board (they are a must), degrees from very good schools, and very well-honed interests. There was something almost ... professional about their presentation. Like, I thought I knew what I wanted to study, but when I look back on it, I realize that my interests were still a little inchoate (that's normal, if you ask me). The people who got into top programs spoke about their work as though they were already junior scholars. They weren't published (and most hadn't even presented a paper), but they were super confident about the intervention they were making--and knew enough to know it *was* an intervention. When I look back on it, I think that my statement was well-written and focused, but it lacked that elusive "it factor" that would have told the world that I was proposing something entirely new and cutting edge.

 

Part of me thinks it's an unfair standard to hold people to. After all, a would-be grad student shouldn't have to be Guggenheim-worthy to move from an unknown undergrad program to a more big-name school. But that's the way it goes, and as the discipline gets more and more competitive, then you're just obviously going to have to deal with this kind of thing.

 

And this is the thing that no one talks about because it's kind of unbecoming: there is always some behind-the-scenes jockeying going on. Of course there is--let's not be naïve. I know of at least a few people whose recommenders were "very friendly" with the adcoms at whatever school. I know one person in particular who very much had an inside track. But this person was also brilliant to begin with. So when his advisor placed a call to his old buddy--well, you could argue that this guy had already "done the work" by distinguishing himself as a student who justified that kind of phone call in the first place. And he was in the right place at the right time--which is the way life goes.

 

Another small anecdote: I know someone who works on the adcom at a top-3 program. They admit about 7 to 10 people every year. He told me that they could easily take any one of 100 or 200 applicants and those people would do just fine.

 

So, I say all this not to be discouraging but to let people know how random and messy this process is. And I can't stress this enough: it's really not over if you don't get into an Ivy League or top-10 program. I've done okay despite not going to one. My friend, on the other hand, got into her "dream program" and totally floundered and hasn't done well at all.

 

If you want it, you will do what it takes to succeed when you're in your program, whether the program is in the top 10 or the top 70.

Edited February 11, 2014 by hashslinger

[Fiz]

Suerte!

Eso es todo!

[ComeBackZinc]

I will go against the grain and say that the perception that the prestige of your undergrad/MA institution doesn't matter much has always seemed like something people want to be true rather than something that is actually true. I think that students from less competitive universities can and do get into great programs all the time. But all else being equal, yes, it probably helps a good deal to have a BA from Yale rather than from Directional State U. (For what it's worth, my BA university was open enrollment.)  You can only control what you can control, so don't sweat it if you don't have a degree from a big name school. But it's important to remember that even impressive academics can be seduced by big names on diplomas as well as anybody else.

 

I would also like to add two factors that affect all manner of human competitive processes: random chance and patronage. In undergrad admissions, the field is now so competitive and the differences between applicants so small that many admit it's essentially random for a large percentage of applicants. (A former Harvard admissions officer admitted that 90% of Harvard's applicants are perfectly capable of excelling there and advocated going to a lottery system after a certain percentage is cut from the bottom.) Grad school apps aren't nearly as random. But the fact of the matter is, you can get unlucky or lucky, depending on a whole number of factors. Also, while it's uncomfortable and brings out a lot of controversy, patronage networks play a role in all kinds of competitive applications, and it would be foolish to think they don't factor into grad schools as well. It's not a matter of conspiracy or schools letting in undeserving candidates because of so-and-so's request. It's a matter of adcomms sorting between hundreds of perfectly deserving candidates and needing to make difficult decisions based on limited information. In that context, it is sensible, if a bit unfair, to take the advice of a friend who says a particular applicant is brilliant. 

[SleepyOldMan]

I would second the comments of hashslinger and comebackzinc.

1. Most professors at most top schools went to a name-brand college and believe that name-brand colleges (and their students) are better than non-name-brand colleges (and their students). It's a pretty general rule of human nature that people are more comfortable with and view in higher regard other people who are like themselves in relevant respects. This is one of those cases. It doesn't mean you cannot be admitted from a non-name-brand school, but it does mean that you have higher hurdles to overcome.

2. If Professor A at your PhD school helped you get a job at University B, then, when Professor A calls you (or writes a LOR) and suggests that undergraduate student C would make a fine graduate student in your department, chances are pretty good that you will make the extra effort to see that C is admitted to your program.

Similarly, if PhD school D manages to place one of its PhD's at University E, chances are pretty good that when professors at University E lobby strongly on behalf of student F for admission to D's PhD program, D is going to think twice before denying F admission.

No mystery here. Just the way the world works in general.

[hashslinger]

And I want to just follow up briefly about presentations and publications.

 

First of all, presenting at a conference is really no big deal. Most of you could probably send an abstract to a conference right now and get it accepted somewhere. No one puts much stock in presenting at a conference unless it's a really prestigious conference. Even then, no grad school is going to admit you just because you presented at some big-name conference. I doubt it would even be a deciding factor if it came down to you and one other person. Conference presentations are just not considered a big deal. By the time you get to the job market, you should have presented at a few good ones, but that's almost considered a "minimum requirement" nowadays--not evidence of some special prowess.

 

Publications--no one expects you to be published as an undergrad. No one expects you to be published as an MA student. No one even expects first- and second-year PhD students to be published. Frankly, any journal that accepts a paper from an undergrad or MA student is probably not worth the time of day. Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but I have seen a lot of book chapters and online articles from eager-to-publish beginning graduate students that are just total crap. When people rush to publish, they often don't put their best work out there or spend enough time revising their work. If something gets accepted the first time out, then you are either an extremely lucky natural genius, or the journal doesn't have high standards.

 

If you have produced something really good, then you should be working closely with a professor to make it even better over the course of your grad career. Getting an article published in an esteemed peer-reviewed journal takes YEARS. If the journal is any good, then you will probably go back and forth with the editor for several months, making revisions. The process goes like this: you send out an article to one journal (and it can be under review only at one journal), the editor will send it to readers, they will sit on it for 4-6 months and then produce readers' reports. If the reports are favorable, then you will be allowed to make revisions. Producing a revised article could take another one to three months of consulting with advisors and doing more research. You send it back to the journal where it sits for another several months. If all goes well, then you get accepted. And then it sits in the queue for one or two years. Finally, about three plus years after you had the initial idea for the article, it gets published. And that's if things go WELL. There are also a lot of articles that get rejected their first time out, and you have to make changes and find a different journal and start the process all over again.

 

So, as you see, it would be highly unlikely for an undergrad or MA student to be published. The peer review process alone takes months, possibly years. Though publication is a worthy goal for an undergrad or MA student--and though the process can be extremely helpful (you get honest feedback from professions in the field who have no idea who you are and therefore no reason to be "nice")--it's probably not something you can realistically achieve at the very beginning of your career. 

Edited February 11, 2014 by hashslinger

[hashslinger]

1. Most professors at most top schools went to a name-brand college and believe that name-brand colleges (and their students) are better than non-name-brand colleges (and their students). It's a pretty general rule of human nature that people are more comfortable with and view in higher regard other people who are like themselves in relevant respects. This is one of those cases. It doesn't mean you cannot be admitted from a non-name-brand school, but it does mean that you have higher hurdles to overcome.

 

 

 

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to say. While it's absolutely possible to get into Prestige U with a no-name BA, you sort of have to "prove yourself" more. People with elite degrees get the benefit of the doubt. Because I've seen the same attitude in my own institution's hiring practices, I have a difficult time believing that it doesn't exist, on some level, in the admissions process.

[scuttlebutt]

I have a parent who is on adcomm and hiring committees all the time. She sees applicants with outstanding CVs and SOPs/letters of intent from a range of applicants: Oxford to Ivy to Big Name State to regional. 

 

She says the Oxfords, Princetons, Yales, etc. always catch her eye, but then she interviews them, and they're clearly not the best candidate for one glaring reason: they're so unaware of their privilege that it's gross and off-putting.

 

Her good friend and colleague, with a degree from an Ivy and socioeconomic background that reflects the primary demographic of Ivies, often says the same.

 

Additionally, I had an hour long conversation with a DGS from a top-tier school recently, and our conversation mainly consisted of him warning against the lure of Ivies and public Ivies because they're not environments that encourage innovation or change in the humanities---in terms of disciplinary practices/standards and the demographics they educate. 

 

I know these are mere anecdotal observations, but my point is that the door swings both ways. Supposed "prestige" doesn't always work in your favor.  

Edited February 12, 2014 by scuttlebutt

[ComeBackZinc]

Oh, for sure. There's no guarantees, obviously.

 

My point would just be this: oftentimes, people come to this board and say "my apps have X problem, can this problem be overcome." And most of the time, unless you're talking a truly atrocious GPA or a history of academic dishonesty, the answer is yes, any particular thing can be overcome. What I would hasten to add to those conversations, though, is that there are many applicants who don't have any areas of obvious weakness-- they have the GPA and the GREs and a good SOP and a good writing sample. Much of the time, adcomms at top programs are choosing among a ton of very qualified applicants. In those situations, having a big name diploma to catch the eye of just one member who will advocate for an app can help. Again, not saying this to discourage anyone. I'm just saying that it's a factor.

[SleepyOldMan]

One might also keep in mind that at the most prestigious grad schools of English, there may be upwards of 400 applications for 8 or 10 spots. So, they may be admitting perhaps 2% out of a pool of applicants that presumably includes the "the best and the brightest.". What would it take to stand out in that crowd?

When this process is over, it would probably be interesting and helpful if those people who are in fact accepted to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Harvard and Stanford describe their pedigree, qualifications and how they wrote their applications.

[poliscar]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned languages yet. Applying for PhD programs without reading knowledge of at least one foreign language puts you at a huge disadvantage. 

[pinkrobot]

I would also like to add two factors that affect all manner of human competitive processes: random chance and patronage. In undergrad admissions, the field is now so competitive and the differences between applicants so small that many admit it's essentially random for a large percentage of applicants. (A former Harvard admissions officer admitted that 90% of Harvard's applicants are perfectly capable of excelling there and advocated going to a lottery system after a certain percentage is cut from the bottom.) Grad school apps aren't nearly as random. But the fact of the matter is, you can get unlucky or lucky, depending on a whole number of factors. 

 

Yes, I really want to emphasize this. I applied twice; there were huge and concrete differences between my two applications for sure (a better statement, more focused research interests, a writing sample that fell in line with those research interests, a higher subject GRE, another conference), but please trust me when I say that luck, I believe, has a GREAT deal to do with things. The more I read about the job market, where things are even worse, the more I'm convinced of this; the difference between number of applicants and number of admits is just so stark that luck will invariably play a large role.

 

ETA: I trimmed out the part of the quote that's about "prestigious" UG backgrounds. While I obviously don't know enough to definitively say that it's not true, I've seen all kinds of folks from all kinds of backgrounds, and, like the people reporting in later on this thread, there's really nothing I've heard more consensus on than the "undergraduate 'prestige' doesn't matter" line. So, I only meant to emphasize the luck and randomness part of ComeBackZinc's post.

Edited February 12, 2014 by pinkrobot

[jazzyd]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned languages yet. Applying for PhD programs without reading knowledge of at least one foreign language puts you at a huge disadvantage. 

 

Eh, I beg to differ. Or I guess, I'm curious how advanced you would consider 'reading knowledge' of a language.

[WendyWonderland]

One might also keep in mind that at the most prestigious grad schools of English, there may be upwards of 400 applications for 8 or 10 spots. So, they may be admitting perhaps 2% out of a pool of applicants that presumably includes the "the best and the brightest.". What would it take to stand out in that crowd?

When this process is over, it would probably be interesting and helpful if those people who are in fact accepted to Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Harvard and Stanford describe their pedigree, qualifications and how they wrote their applications.

Oh haha, I wanted to post the same thing, invite ppl who re accepted to share their backgrounds.

Or I can share mine which would tell u what is not enough lol, because I applied to Yale Princeton Harvard and Stanford, and I know Stanford does not want me. I guess language skills only is not enough, I can speak 5. Chinese ( mothertounge) German ( almost mothertounge) English ( very good ) and basic French plus basic Portuguese. Publications check, good Toefl check, internship check, related working experience check and GRE 308 ( might be a reason).So I do believe it is all about " fit" game....

[CommPhD20]

There is no advice I've heard more consistently from academics than that undergrad institution hardly matters. There are things about your undergrad institution that might benefit you, like possibly better prep, a better feel for academia, and of course letter writers that are familiar names for the adcomms. Beyond that, it is a relatively small factor and many realize that name-brand at the undergrad level doesn't always mean much -- such as the people sitting on an adcomm using their grad students as primary teachers for their undergrad classes at Name Brand U. 

 

There will be some correlation, of course, as strong undergrad applicants are the most likely to become strong graduate applicants. Different academics will view things differently as well. Many people sitting on an adcomm will have had come from a humbler undergrad institution and/or have taught at one earlier in their career. 

[SleepyOldMan]

Let's recall that this thread is about getting into the "top tier" schools.

 

It may be that academics in general say that undergrad institution does not matter, but the question here is whether it matters to academics (and adcomm members in particular) at the top tier schools.  The prestige of the university at which they teach assuredly matters to them; and, I would guess, many of them went to name brand UGs as well, the prestige of which also matters to them.

 

I would also note that it would be highly non-PC for an adcomm member to come out and "say" that UG institution matters a lot.  It sounds too elitist.  But it is hardly rare in human affairs for people to say one thing and actually do another.

 

As in any profession, the primary question the group of insiders ask themselves in evaluating an outsider/applicant is whether the outsider is likely to become "one of us."  The more the applicant "looks" like one of the insiders, the more the insiders are likely to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.  To someone whose self-image is defined in very important part by academic pedigree, applicants who have a "lesser" pedigree immediately have another hurdle to clear, because they immediately appear as "other."

[poliscar]

Eh, I beg to differ. Or I guess, I'm curious how advanced you would consider 'reading knowledge' of a language.

It depends on the program, but generally I would consider it the ability to pass a reading exam (not necessarily difficult). Chicago is a bit of a different story, since they only ask for one language, but almost all other top programs ask for two (or fluency in one at Berkeley). In that case they're more likely to accept someone with the ability to complete at least one of those exams ASAP, rather than having to study two languages. 

It also depends on your field. If you're applying as a Medievalist or Early Modernist you're damn well going to have to develop a working knowledge of Latin at some point, plus at least another language. Americanists are probably the safest, but even then, with the so-called "Transnational Turn" the field is becoming more and more linguistically diverse. 

[ComeBackZinc]

Here are the undergraduate institutions of the current faculty members at Yale English, with a few left out that I couldn't find. I'm not nominating Yale as the best program or anything of the sort. I'm just picking it as an inarguably elite program and using it as just a little food for thought.

 

Yale
Cornell
Washington University in St. Louis
Harvard
Columbia
Yale
Mount Holyoke
NYU
UC-Berkeley
NYU
UW-Madison
Yale
Yale
Johns Hopkins
Princeton
Columbia
Villanova
Dartmouth
Yale
Queen's University Belfast
Dartmouth
Williams College
Wheaton College
Oxford
University of London
Yale
Oxford
Michigan - Ann Arbor
Allegheny College
Hamilton College
Yale
UC-Berkeley
Trinity
University of Alberta
St. John Fisher College
University of Alabama
Swarthmore

 

Do I take this as particularly compelling evidence?  No, I don't. I'm just offering it as one example. And like I said, there's exceptions peppered in there. But almost without exception, these people went on to big-name PhD programs. Sure, people climb the ladder, it happens all the time. But to suggest that the prestige of your undergraduate institution doesn't matter, or doesn't matter a lot, is trafficking in a pleasant fantasy. I'm just think that people should be upfront about the competitive landscape. I'm not trying to discourage anyone.

 

Now if you're not moved by this, that's fine. But I think you should go through the faculty web pages of some universities you admire or respect, from different "tiers" of prestige, and see if Yale is an exception or more like the rule.