What's the issue with impersonal emails?

[Eyetea]

I understand how rude it might seem if you get a rejection email with one sentence. What I do not get is the gripe with the whole 'impersonal email' that is common on the results page. Is the graduate coordinator supposed write a personal email to each of the 100+ rejected applicants? Sometimes, another rejected applicant from the same program will post an excerpt from the email that sounds very courteous. Oh well, maybe it's just the waiting that's making me whiny...

[jjduval]

I know you know the answer to this, bro. 
 
We put a lot of effort into these applications, and, by the time they're all submitted, we are very personally invested in the outcome. So, if I get rejected from a program, I'd also be wounded by a curt "lol no." We all like to be let down softly, you know?

 

And since so many applicants spend so much time on this forum trawling for any bit of information, I'm sure you can understand how, come April, there'll be dozens of threads about how the admissions committees are all a bunch of jackasses.

[Boba felt]

"Lol, no". Gonna have nightmares about that being my rejection email.

[GeoDUDE!]

I know you know the answer to this, bro. 

 

We put a lot of effort into these applications, and, by the time they're all submitted, we are very personally invested in the outcome. So, if I get rejected from a program, I'd also be wounded by a curt "lol no." We all like to be let down softly, you know?

 

And since so many applicants spend so much time on this forum trawling for any bit of information, I'm sure you can understand how, come April, there'll be dozens of threads about how the admissions committees are all a bunch of jackasses.

 

While I don't think you suggesting this, people seem to think that adcomms want to reject people; Especially in PhD programs they want as many as they can possibly teach. This is especially true in the sciences; Its just that there are very real time and mostly money constraints. Adcomms arent the enemy, the people cutting NSF's budget is.

[jjduval]

While I don't think you suggesting this, people seem to think that adcomms want to reject people; Especially in PhD programs they want as many as they can possibly teach. This is especially true in the sciences; Its just that there are very real time and mostly money constraints. Adcomms arent the enemy, the people cutting NSF's budget is.

 

That's the sort of attitude we need to have, you know? We are all intelligent people and know that these programs are restricted by a lot of different variables. It's just so hard to be rejected after we spend so much energy on applications and get so excited about studying there.

 

Now you've gone and made me cry.

[Eyetea]

At my undergrad, my research advisor was on an admissions committee and I saw first-hand just how bad he felt turning away applicants who he thought would thrive well in the program. I know we're all invested, but as you jjduval said, not everyone can get in- sometimes its a matter of who impressed the eye first/most.

[phdcandidate022014]

Or you can consider the programs that have 600-700 applications that are only accepting 20-30 people.  It's a time game.  Even a great coder would have a hard time coming up with an algorithm to create slightly personalized rejection e-mail to the 570-670 rejects.

 

Also, not all rejects are created equal.  Some aren't even close (many of you have seen those posting such sentiments on the results page, e.g. "not a fit, but had to try" or whatever) and some may be close.  It's not reasonable for adcoms or their assistants to come up with a gradient of responses to reflect just how close certain applicants are.  Like anyone else doing their job, they want to figure out who is the best fit, notify them, and move forward to get, you know, real work done.

[ginagirl]

"Lol, no". Gonna have nightmares about that being my rejection email.

[CommPhD20]

I would be tickled shitless if I got a personally written letter from a school that rejected me -- just because it would suggest that I still impressed them. With that said, I have no expectation of that as it would be incredibly time consuming and that doesn't make sense since it is already a burdensome process for working academics.

[serotoninronin]

Also, not all rejects are created equal.  Some aren't even close (many of you have seen those posting such sentiments on the results page, e.g. "not a fit, but had to try" or whatever) and some may be close.  It's not reasonable for adcoms or their assistants to come up with a gradient of responses to reflect just how close certain applicants are.

 

Exactly.

 

I've never been bothered by the tone of a rejection, honestly. The more impersonal, the more room for me to rationalize less and less depressing reasons for my rejection.

[I am not sure yet]

People are just way to sensitive when it comes to the whole application process. I haven't been rejected anywhere so far, but I am ready to get any sort of email, it doesn't really make a difference.

 

I would get more pissed off if I didn't get any answer and had to call/email the program to find out I was rejected! 

[Crucial BBQ]

 

Is this from the MIT undergraduate admissions page?  

I understand how rude it might seem if you get a rejection email with one sentence. What I do not get is the gripe with the whole 'impersonal email' that is common on the results page. Is the graduate coordinator supposed write a personal email to each of the 100+ rejected applicants? Sometimes, another rejected applicant from the same program will post an excerpt from the email that sounds very courteous. Oh well, maybe it's just the waiting that's making me whiny...

I remember my one reject from undergrad, from Tufts.  It was quite long for a "no", four to five paragraphs in length, and totally obvious it was a form letter even though it tried hard to be personal. . 

[elisewin]

In my case, last year, when I got all rejections, I didn't even get to see the letters because it was all through the Fulbright Commission. I just got emails from them saying "sorry, you didn't make it to X" or "sorry, you weren't successful this time either." It feels weird not to have the actual notifications.

[jammy]

I've heard quite a few times that the commitees put a lot of work into considering the applications. If that's true, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a fairly personalized letter rejecting you.

Just have one extra person taking notes for each applicant, and then include those notes.

 

As for "not all rejects are equal"--- that's the whole point. If I am nowhere near getting into a program, they can decide that very quickly, and tell me.

 

If you are close to a good fit for a job you'll normally get an interview, and the people will often honestly tell you what you're missing (or if they just don't have a position available). How did it come about that we're paying 60 bucks for a form letter?

 

 

There is obviously something very wrong with the system. Professors could be more communicative with prospective students; students could apply to less universities (applying to 10 is just absurd, at that point you're just gambling); but I'd assume mostly it's the people in administration's fault.

 

 

One idea I've had: universities should have stricter objective requirements for admission. You need this GPA and these test scores to be considered; or, if you think you're a special case, pay extra.