Phd Admissions

[logos0516]

So I got rejected from Northwestern so far, and I'm almost certain I got rejected from Brown and Yale too, and will hear from them this week, if they even bother to tell me. I didn't get in the first round of acceptances at University of Virginia, and they told me they will send out their waiting list by the end of next week. Now I think I'll probably get rejected there too. Thing is, most of the schools I applied to are above the top-40 (UVA is ranked 40 by the Gourmet Report). So if I'm getting rejected from a number 40-ranked school, does that mean the rest of my applications, which are around the top 5-35, are in trouble? I have to imagine that the quality of the applicants at the better programs is only that much better, and that the competition is even more fierce. I applied to about 2 safety schools, but they are not schools I want to go to. Are my chances of getting into a good (top 25) program less now because of the rejections lower down?

[MattDest]

So I got rejected from Northwestern so far, and I'm almost certain I got rejected from Brown and Yale too, and will hear from them this week, if they even bother to tell me. I didn't get in the first round of acceptances at University of Virginia, and they told me they will send out their waiting list by the end of next week. Now I think I'll probably get rejected there too. Thing is, most of the schools I applied to are above the top-40 (UVA is ranked 40 by the Gourmet Report). So if I'm getting rejected from a number 40-ranked school, does that mean the rest of my applications, which are around the top 5-35, are in trouble? I have to imagine that the quality of the applicants at the better programs is only that much better, and that the competition is even more fierce. I applied to about 2 safety schools, but they are not schools I want to go to. Are my chances of getting into a good (top 25) program less now because of the rejections lower down?

 

Why would you apply to a school that you do not want to go to? A rejection at one program doesn't necessarily mean anything about your admission chances at another program. I've been rejected at many lower-ranked programs (T20-40), but accepted into a T-20 program. I took certain rejections much harder than others, because I thought they signaled a weaker application. But it wasn't about the rank of the program, but my own perceived fit. I took the rejection from Northwestern a lot harder than UNC, for example. 

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I wouldn't say that, in and of itself, rejection (or implied rejection) from a lower ranked school should be taken to indicate that one won't get accepted to a higher ranked school.  I applied to one of the first schools to release results (Duke).  After not hearing anything, I started to have the same feelings as you.  I thought that top 25 was out of reach.  About a week later, I got an offer from UNC-Chapel Hill.  I still haven't heard anything from Duke, so I'm assuming that I'll be rejected.  MattDest, another frequent poster here, was waitlisted at Missouri (ranked around 50) and accepted outright to Arizona, a top 15.  There are too many factors at play in admissions that depend on chance.  I wouldn't worry yet.

[logos0516]

I'm a little worried, because I see a lot of students have gotten 2, 3, and in some cases 4 or 5 acceptances already, and all I have is one definite rejection, and two strongly implied rejections. At some other schools I took a chance and submitted a book I had written and had published by a legitimate academic publisher, I thought that might help, but I haven't heard anything from those schools yet, and from the admissions page here is seems they haven't released anything yet- acceptances, wait-lists, or rejections. But I'm just worried that a trend is starting to develop here with my applications, and I don't know what's going on. 

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I'd still say don't worry yet.  8 of my schools have released results and I've only heard from 3.  You won't know anything until you hear from all of your schools (or at least until all of your schools have released results).  I wouldn't assume any kind of "trend" in your results thus far.  There's no reason to think that an outright rejection at one place means anything with respect to what will happen at another place.  

[logos0516]

I'm going to put in a call to one of the schools from which I got rejected, and just ask them what the reason was. Not like I'm asking for an explanation of their decision, which they don't have to give me, but just to shed some light on it, so I know better the weaknesses and strengths of my application.

[maxhgns]

I'm going to put in a call to one of the schools from which I got rejected, and just ask them what the reason was. Not like I'm asking for an explanation of their decision, which they don't have to give me, but just to shed some light on it, so I know better the weaknesses and strengths of my application.

 

 

You can certainly do that, but odds are there's no reason that's going to satisfy you. In fact, they probably haven't the foggiest clue who you are or what your file looked like. It's not like they write comments in the margins of your file. Remember, you were one among hundreds of applicants.

[ta_pros_to_telos]

Lamparem, do whatever you wish, obviously, but I'm not sure Ph.D. admissions involve being personally rejected so much as just not being one of the few chosen. While we all certainly have weaknesses as applicants, if a committee only has a handful of places it can give, and an applicant pool in the hundreds, it seems like that committee's decisions might be more a matter of identifying who stands out *most* than simply ruling candidates unfit for admission. 

[humean_skeptic]

Lamparem, do whatever you wish, obviously, but I'm not sure Ph.D. admissions involve being personally rejected so much as just not being one of the few chosen. While we all certainly have weaknesses as applicants, if a committee only has a handful of places it can give, and an applicant pool in the hundreds, it seems like that committee's decisions might be more a matter of identifying who stands out *most* than simply ruling candidates unfit for admission. 

 

While what you've said here is very sensible, it's important to note a qualification: The process of selecting the handful of applicants who stand out the most in a pool of 200+ surely *does* for the most part involve rejecting applicants because they are deemed unfit for admission. Finding the 10 who stand out the most out of 237 involves not just positively being impressed with the 10 but also finding reasons significant enough to rule out the other 227. 

 

Moreover, at some later stage of the committee's decisions, where presumably the pool has narrowed considerably from 227 to, say, a pool of 30 of the most impressive applications, narrowing the pool even further probably involves rejections based on very close scrutiny of the specific weaknesses in each application. 

[logos0516]

While what you've said here is very sensible, it's important to note a qualification: The process of selecting the handful of applicants who stand out the most in a pool of 200+ surely *does* for the most part involve rejecting applicants because they are deemed unfit for admission. Finding the 10 who stand out the most out of 237 involves not just positively being impressed with the 10 but also finding reasons significant enough to rule out the other 227. 

 

Moreover, at some later stage of the committee's decisions, where presumably the pool has narrowed considerably from 227 to, say, a pool of 30 of the most impressive applications, narrowing the pool even further probably involves rejections based on very close scrutiny of the specific weaknesses in each application. 

Maybe, but at a certain level, *all* the applicants are the same. They all have 3.8 or above GPAs, great letters of recommendation talking about how much they're the next Kant or Nietzsche (we know how rampant recommendation inflation is), and all have great writing samples. Are you telling me they're really gonna accept the guy with a 3.99 GPA and reject the guy who "only" had a 3.90? Seems a little ridiculous. Moreover, if you look closely at the cafe's webpage where people are saying where they got in, there's really no logic to it. Lot's of students with 3.9 and even 4.0 GPAs have been rejected, and with great GREs as well. I can easily show you applicants who have better scores who were rejected from schools others got into with lesser scores. There's little logic to it. Someone said they got into University of Virginia with a 3.5 GPA! And I didn't get into UVA, with a 3.83 GPA.

[Monadology]

Do we know how rampant recommendation inflation is?

[humean_skeptic]

Maybe, but at a certain level, *all* the applicants are the same. They all have 3.8 or above GPAs, great letters of recommendation talking about how much they're the next Kant or Nietzsche (we know how rampant recommendation inflation is), and all have great writing samples. Are you telling me they're really gonna accept the guy with a 3.99 GPA and reject the guy who "only" had a 3.90? Seems a little ridiculous. Moreover, if you look closely at the cafe's webpage where people are saying where they got in, there's really no logic to it. Lot's of students with 3.9 and even 4.0 GPAs have been rejected, and with great GREs as well. I can easily show you applicants who have better scores who were rejected from schools others got into with lesser scores. There's little logic to it. Someone said they got into University of Virginia with a 3.5 GPA! And I didn't get into UVA, with a 3.83 GPA.

 

Oh I'm certainly not doubting that there is a ton of chance involved. That's why even an applicant whose application is strong in every single way still has to play the odds. But there is *some* logic to the process, I think, if by 'some logic' we mean that the outcomes are at least somewhat predictable and make at least some sense. 

[Establishment]

Do we know how rampant recommendation inflation is?

 

Obligatory Leiter-link: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/11/inflated-letters-of-recommendation.html

[logos0516]

Obligatory Leiter-link: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/11/inflated-letters-of-recommendation.html

Well then, there it is. And I'm sure everybody knows how difficult it is to get into a top-10 program, and all the professors writing the *recommendation letters* *know* how difficult it is, and so they're pumping up their students more than they should. And an admissions committee has to sift through 300-plus applications with probably dozens of letters written like this? C'mon, how could they? There has to be some randomness in the decision-making. 

[MattDest]

Maybe, but at a certain level, *all* the applicants are the same. They all have 3.8 or above GPAs, great letters of recommendation talking about how much they're the next Kant or Nietzsche (we know how rampant recommendation inflation is), and all have great writing samples. Are you telling me they're really gonna accept the guy with a 3.99 GPA and reject the guy who "only" had a 3.90? Seems a little ridiculous. Moreover, if you look closely at the cafe's webpage where people are saying where they got in, there's really no logic to it. Lot's of students with 3.9 and even 4.0 GPAs have been rejected, and with great GREs as well. I can easily show you applicants who have better scores who were rejected from schools others got into with lesser scores. There's little logic to it. Someone said they got into University of Virginia with a 3.5 GPA! And I didn't get into UVA, with a 3.83 GPA.

 

The problem is that the stats don't tell the whole story. The stats don't tell what seem to be the best indicators of application success: quality of writing sample, undergrad or MA institution pedigree, (maybe) letter-writer name recognition, and fit. 

 

The first seems pretty straightforward. GPA and GRE scores don't determine the quality of an applicant's sample. While there is certainly going to be a lot of high-quality writing, I bet there is a higher degree of separation in quality of writing than there is in GPA scores.

 

The pedigree issue seems to be closely related to GPA scores. A student who goes to Princeton and gets a 3.8 is probably going to be looked at as roughly equivalent to someone who went to Southwestern Small State Technical College and got a 4.0. Similarly, when one reads a letter from Frank Jackson or Elizabeth Harman, they might take their estimation of a student's ability to have more weight than a professor that doesn't have name recognition. This isn't to say that any of these are good practices, but I think they are realities of admissions decisions that aren't captured by the stats posted on gradcafe. 

 

Then, the factor which we have discussed at length in these forums, fit. Suppose someone with perfect stats - a GPA of 4.0,  GRE scores of 170/170/6.0 applies to a school that doesn't have anybody working in their area of interest. That person might be passed over in favor of a student who has AOIs that closely match up to the program's strengths, but has less impressive numbers. 

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Obviously the Leiter post is speaking about letters of recommendation written by Senior faculty for recent PhDs or Junior faculty looking to secure employment, not for professors writing on behalf of their student's entry into a program, so I am not sure how helpful that link is. I had not seen the discussion before (but obviously know of the issue) and so was hoping to learn a thing or two from the Leiter post, but didn't find much. I think writing letters for students looking to go to grad school is a whole different ball game. Too bad it hasn't been specifically addressed at Leiter. I did, however, notice that one poster mentioned a distinction between the way UK profs write their letters and the way Americans do, namely, that in the UK, professors are on the whole much less hyperbolic. I got my MA in the UK, and all of my letters came from professors there. I wouldn't change my writers for anything, but I wonder how their letters are being perceived... 

[logos0516]

I don't know about the writing samples. I would like to think at this point in my graduate career I know the difference between a writing sample of superior quality, and one of inferior quality, and I would like to think the writing sample I submitted this time around was the best work I've ever done. But who knows. I did get rejected from a few schools already, so maybe the writing sample doesn't count for everything. 

[Monadology]

I don't know about the writing samples. I would like to think at this point in my graduate career I know the difference between a writing sample of superior quality, and one of inferior quality, and I would like to think the writing sample I submitted this time around was the best work I've ever done. But who knows. I did get rejected from a few schools already, so maybe the writing sample doesn't count for everything. 

 

Adcom members probably have varying standards of superior/inferior. Some qualities (like clarity) are probably universally well regarded, but others are probably more variable in terms of priority.

[Establishment]

Adcom members probably have varying standards of superior/inferior. Some qualities (like clarity) are probably universally well regarded, but others are probably more variable in terms of priority.

 

 

Yeah. Just look at all the various different contemporary philosophers you end up reading, and their philosophical style/approach to problems. People have varying degrees of preference when it comes to doing/how to do philosophy.

[logos0516]

I submitted a historical paper on Descartes' Meditation Three. I analyzed and critiqued the arguments of opponents of one view, and supported the alternative view. I hope they don't view it as a negative that I did a historical paper instead of one on a contemporary problem. I mean, I certainly included enough analysis in it. And it was clear, and professionally written, at least as well-written as I could make it.