Fall 2015 Applicants

[angel_kaye13]

Hesse and Wyatt: also out of up-votes, but it's encouraging to hear some healthy thinking out there; I, for one, appreciate it. It's very easy to take things personally, and you see a lot of that on this forum. And people think English majors suffer from the most psychosis! ;-) :-D It IS just business, in the end. All the same, I like to let people know there are others who are there, in the joy AND the sadness. Just think: We may be the sanest, most supportive bunch here!*^^* :-D

Edited January 25, 2015 by angel_kaye13

[snyegurachka]

Does anyone else obsessively check his/her academia.edu analytics and freak out every time someone from somewhere near some place you are applying has viewed your profile?

[smg]

But yeah, thanks for the advice guys. I'll just leave my teacher clothes on.

Edit Converge! Yeah! WEST COAST POWERVIOOOLLLLENCE

(so sorry)

 

Should of worn my Dropdead shirt and patchpants. Shit.  I wonder how many former crusties are on GF?

[hreaðemus]

This is a bit random, but has anybody noticed that the majority of people who are accepted to Ph.D. programs post minimal information (GREs sometimes, comments rarely - and then somewhat vague, like "Second choice. Excited!") while people who have been rejected tend to offer a list of achievements (GREs + "Three pubs, 2 first author, three years research experience. Their loss.")?

 

I have two thoughts on this. First, I totally understand. When you're admitted, the pressure is off - you're free! Woo! Your entry in the database is a celebration, and really you'll never need those stats again, so who cares? And when you're rejected, you feel defensive - you worked hard for this! You're awesome! This is so arbitrary. Those responses are totally natural and totally human.

 

BUT. It would be so useful for me, and other prospective grad students, to know the specific qualifications of successful applicants. So this is really a very heartfelt request: when you get in (and I have so much faith!!) PLEASE include your stats. Pleasepleaseplease. And if you've got research experience, an MA, publications, etc, it would be awesome to know that too!! We all want to be successful applicants, after all - sharing your particular qualifications would be, in my opinion, very generous.

 

Just a thought as I wait impatiently for Jan. 31st!

[Dr. Old Bill]

Agreed wholeheartedly! As appreciative as I am of people uploading any results at all, I'm always a bit flummoxed by the number of folks who neglect to post their GRE / GPA info. I will definitely be doing so, should I get an acceptance, as well as any details that might be helpful to future GC cohorts..."pay it forward" and all that.

[unræd]

This is a bit random, but has anybody noticed that the majority of people who are accepted to Ph.D. programs post minimal information (GREs sometimes, comments rarely - and then somewhat vague, like "Second choice. Excited!") while people who have been rejected tend to offer a list of achievements (GREs + "Three pubs, 2 first author, three years research experience. Their loss.")?

 

I have two thoughts on this. First, I totally understand. When you're admitted, the pressure is off - you're free! Woo! Your entry in the database is a celebration, and really you'll never need those stats again, so who cares? And when you're rejected, you feel defensive - you worked hard for this! You're awesome! This is so arbitrary. Those responses are totally natural and totally human.

 

BUT. It would be so useful for me, and other prospective grad students, to know the specific qualifications of successful applicants. So this is really a very heartfelt request: when you get in (and I have so much faith!!) PLEASE include your stats. Pleasepleaseplease. And if you've got research experience, an MA, publications, etc, it would be awesome to know that too!! We all want to be successful applicants, after all - sharing your particular qualifications would be, in my opinion, very generous.

 

Just a thought as I wait impatiently for Jan. 31st!

 

This is interesting! I've specifically avoided sharing statistics both on the fora and in my (single, lonely) acceptance result post for two reasons.

 

The first is because I hadn't thought the stats would actually be useful in a meaningful way to other applicants. Given published information on minima and averages, it's clear that even the best schools admit applicants with a range (sure--a much smaller range in some the case of some programs) of scores and GPAs, and I think sharing those more easily quantified items distorts their importance in a field like English, where all evidence suggests that what really discriminates between applicants at the final stage of the process is both luck and the highly subjective, much less quantifiable parts of the portfolio. There's no handy way to communicate the details of your writing sample, statement, and letters (to say nothing of research fit!) on the results board. And even if there were, self-assessment of those parts of the application wouldn't be a particularly sensitive diagnostic, anyway--presumably we all think ours are good, if we've used them in our applications!

 

The second reason is pure midwestern reticence/reluctance to self promote, combined with the sense that it's often that sort of thing that has animated some of the less salutary aspects of GC--worry, anxious comparison--which I have zero interest in contributing to. Numbers are easy to hold on to, but that doesn't make them good handholds.

 

So hearing this from you--someone whose discernment I respect and whose numerical parts of the application (this isn't intended to put you on the spot, and I hope it doesn't) are very, very stellar--really makes me think about things in a different way, especially if you (and others) would find that sort of sharing useful and even generous rather than just overweening. It's presumptuous to assume I'll get another acceptance (and given the way the timeline of the next set of notifications is structured, I'm much more likely to get a rejection first!), but if I do, I'll be sure to include the relevant data.

[kurayamino]

This is interesting! I've specifically avoided sharing statistics both on the fora and in my (single, lonely) acceptance result post for two reasons.

 

The first is because I hadn't thought the stats would actually be useful in a meaningful way to other applicants. Given published information on minima and averages, it's clear that even the best schools admit applicants with a range (sure--a much smaller range in some the case of some programs) of scores and GPAs, and I think sharing those more easily quantified items distorts their importance in a field like English, where all evidence suggests that what really discriminates between applicants at the final stage of the process is both luck and the highly subjective, much less quantifiable parts of the portfolio.

 

 

I think overall you're right, but I think it would also be useful if your scores are outliers in any way. My AW score on the GRE is low (in my opinion) and so if I get accepted somewhere I'd want to make sure that score was there for someone to see that it's still possible to get in at X school despite that. This would show that other aspects of the application are weighted more and so forth.

I like what hreaðemus suggested, that information such as research experience and publications would be very helpful in gauging what is necessary for future applicants and I'll be sure to put my credentials on both my rejections and my acceptances (I hope!).

[jazzyd]

The second reason is pure midwestern reticence/reluctance to self promote, combined with the sense that it's often that sort of thing that has animated some of the less salutary aspects of GC--worry, anxious comparison--which I have zero interest in contributing to. Numbers are easy to hold on to, but that doesn't make them good handholds.

 

I had to chuckle at this! Though perhaps living in the city for a fair length of time has distorted my notion of 'midwestern' social attitudes. 

[1Q84]

I think overall you're right, but I think it would also be useful if your scores are outliers in any way. My AW score on the GRE is low (in my opinion) and so if I get accepted somewhere I'd want to make sure that score was there for someone to see that it's still possible to get in at X school despite that. This would show that other aspects of the application are weighted more and so forth.

I like what hreaðemus suggested, that information such as research experience and publications would be very helpful in gauging what is necessary for future applicants and I'll be sure to put my credentials on both my rejections and my acceptances (I hope!).

 

This. When I'm neurotically trawling through results, I find seeing the outliers as both more positive for my morale and informative about my chances.

 

 

The first is because I hadn't thought the stats would actually be useful in a meaningful way to other applicants. Given published information on minima and averages, it's clear that even the best schools admit applicants with a range (sure--a much smaller range in some the case of some programs) of scores and GPAs, and I think sharing those more easily quantified items distorts their importance in a field like English, where all evidence suggests that what really discriminates between applicants at the final stage of the process is both luck and the highly subjective, much less quantifiable parts of the portfolio. There's no handy way to communicate the details of your writing sample, statement, and letters (to say nothing of research fit!) on the results board. And even if there were, self-assessment of those parts of the application wouldn't be a particularly sensitive diagnostic, anyway--presumably we all think ours are good, if we've used them in our applications!

 

 

I think one way of counteracting this--and I've seen it in some people's entries-- is to enter some of the more subjective aspects of one's acceptance (if known) in the written field (eg. "POI said good fit," "Received compliments on WS," etc.) That data plus the hard number data combined would probably lend greatly to what hreaðemus is talking about.

Edited January 25, 2015 by 1Q84

[mikers86]

I was definitely an outlier last year and it worked out in the end. Happy to share, though PM if you want numbers.

[thepriorwalter]

What about a gdoc? Not because the results board doesn't provide a space but because it would allow for better standardization of information? For instance, a column asking whether you were in touch with POIs during the application process. On that point in particular it would be interesting to me to see if a trend emerged (and could help future applicants gauge whether or not it's necessary to contact POIs there, if they are receiving mixed opinions on this from their own advisers, as I did). Other things: did you mention POIs by name in your SOP, self-categorization of undergrad/MA institution (ivy, public ivy, tier 2, etc), and so on.

I can create it if anyone thinks it's a good idea and not just overkill. Any other columns people would be interested in are also welcome (beyond the standard GPA, test scores, publications, conferences, and highest degree).

[Dr. Old Bill]

^ For what it's worth, I would certainly contribute to that.

[toasterazzi]

Speaking of Google docs, here's one from a couple years ago about funding info that people might find relevant:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al9pLrYezRcSdGdUTk0zWk5QVUJFSGxVZ2FJQ1QwWFE#gid=0

[mightysparrow]

 

BUT. It would be so useful for me, and other prospective grad students, to know the specific qualifications of successful applicants.

 

While there are few international applicants on this forum, I can see how this is pertinent to intl students as well. I, for one, wondered if my CGPA (on a 10 point scale where nobody can possibly score 10) and international status would affect my application to a public university in the US. Thanks for this, hreaðemus (even if this wasn't what you were looking for!). I just posted my acceptance & related information.

[hypervodka]

I can create it if anyone thinks it's a good idea and not just overkill. Any other columns people would be interested in are also welcome (beyond the standard GPA, test scores, publications, conferences, and highest degree).

I'd contribute!

[bgt28]

I love the Google doc idea, for all the reasons posted. But for my own peace of mind as well. I'm very comfortable talking about my numbers because (as I'm sure some of you remember), I believe that test scores are a form of fascism, but lately I've become really insecure about my GRE situation and need the pick me up. I'd definitely contribute. (If anyone is interested my stats are on a forum topic I started on comp lit/am studies fears, insecurities etc.)

Again, I concur that many people would benefit from this not for reasons of comparison/"chance me" but for hope and friendship. I need friends lol

[__________________________]

What about a gdoc? Not because the results board doesn't provide a space but because it would allow for better standardization of information? For instance, a column asking whether you were in touch with POIs during the application process. On that point in particular it would be interesting to me to see if a trend emerged (and could help future applicants gauge whether or not it's necessary to contact POIs there, if they are receiving mixed opinions on this from their own advisers, as I did). Other things: did you mention POIs by name in your SOP, self-categorization of undergrad/MA institution (ivy, public ivy, tier 2, etc), and so on.

I can create it if anyone thinks it's a good idea and not just overkill. Any other columns people would be interested in are also welcome (beyond the standard GPA, test scores, publications, conferences, and highest degree).

I would contribute :-). I think this would be a good idea, especially for those of us whose "raw" numerical stats aren't particularly insanely impressive just sitting there alone.

Speaking of Google docs, here's one from a couple years ago about funding info that people might find relevant:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al9pLrYezRcSdGdUTk0zWk5QVUJFSGxVZ2FJQ1QwWFE#gid=0

This has been quite useful to me, though it's a few years old.

I love the Google doc idea, for all the reasons posted. But for my own peace of mind as well. I'm very comfortable talking about my numbers because (as I'm sure some of you remember), I believe that test scores are a form of fascism, but lately I've become really insecure about my GRE situation and need the pick me up. I'd definitely contribute. (If anyone is interested my stats are on a forum topic I started on comp lit/am studies fears, insecurities etc.)

Again, I concur that many people would benefit from this not for reasons of comparison/"chance me" but for hope and friendship. I need friends lol

GC is a decent place for support and surprisingly passionate and supportive, if quasi-anonymous, friends for this process! :-) My GREs/gpa digits can't even touch those of many people I've encountered here, yet many I've met have been suuuper helpful, sweet, and supportive.

[Dr. Old Bill]

 I believe that test scores are a form of fascism, but lately I've become really insecure about my GRE situation and need the pick me up.

 

I empathize. Truly. The mind automatically turns to the weakest part(s) of one's application at this point, and for me, the weakest part is almost certainly my GRE scores. They're not BAD, per se -- in a vacuum, my verbal is "good" -- but they're not reflective of my abilities...yet because they are numbers, and because numbers are far easier to compare and contrast than 20-page essays, I can't help but worry a little that my application could be judged too much on this one seemingly insignificant metric, because it's a very easy way to whittle down the overall number of applicants. Adcomms consist of a bunch of smart humans, yet it's hard to deny that knocking off a large swath of potential applicants by an easy means must be appealing...

 

Of course, these worries are probably all stupid, paranoid, psyche-produced bunk...but so it goes!

Edited January 25, 2015 by Wyatt's Torch

[__________________________]

Honestly, I treated the GRE as the least important part of my app and focused on writing a solid WS instead. I maybe studied for the gre for like a week and read on here somewhere that I had to break a certain verbal score and a certain aw score and did that, while being in the 28th quant percentile . In short, I don't think you should worry all that much. GRE is bullshit and most literature profs know that and care little about it. Which I guess only makes it feel like more of a waste. bgt, I don't think you should worry about it at this point - it is what it is and its probably the least important part of your application. :-)

[Appppplication]

The GRE is a tricky topic. On the political science boards there's a faculty thread where a lot of insight is given into the admissions process. They all said that graduate school-wide cut-offs for GREs are in place, and so long as you meet that cut off you are fine. If you do not meet that cut off they can use a waiver to admit you, but only so many waivers are available to use per season by each department. 

 

I know that in my complit apps at least two programs mentioned graduate school GRE cut-offs. 

 

I too did not have much time to study for the GRE and my scores were decent, not great, but above the cut-offs. 

 

I do worry that lower GRE scores may prohibit any exceptional funding opportunities that are awarded by the graduate school as a whole rather than the departments (any funding above the standard package for admitted students).

Edited January 25, 2015 by Appppplication

[hreaðemus]

Well, gosh - my post sparked a super interesting area of conversation here! That makes me happy.

 

I think you all have raised some excellent points. My perspective on "hard stats," as it were, is that individual scores are only marginally useful on their own - obviously each school selects a range of applicants, and we all know the GRE provides only a very limited prediction of success, often based more on socioeconomic stratification than on ability. However, they can be extremely useful in bulk/over time. For example, I know Berkeley will likely notify acceptances in the next two weeks - and I know this because, over the past six years, GradCafe folks have consistently reported acceptances between Jan. 31st and Feb. 22nd (my birthday, augh!). However, I DON'T know how many of Berkeley's admits, on average, have been published; I don't know how many get in with a GRE Quant score of >50%, I don't know how many have conducted independent research, and I don't know how many contacted their POIs before applying. But IF accepted applicants reported this information as consistently as they report the date, I would - and I'd be much better equipped to situate myself within the applicant pool.

 

In this sense, posting said scores is a gift to future applicants more than anything else. But with enough data, it would over time reduce the sense that adcomms are totally arbitrary, and give us a way to more efficiently self-assess. If, for example, 70% of Notre Dame acceptances report having been published prior to admission, but 65% report a GRE Verbal of 162<, then we know Notre Dame prioritizes publications over a high Verbal score - and future applicants know that there is a specific, concrete way for them to improve their chances at that school. 

 

While the "soft" areas of applications are both more important and less straight-forward, there are still ways to vet and compare. For example - did your paper win a prize? Was it published? Did three professors read you draft and give you the OK? Did you write it the night before your applications were due, or agonize 6 months in advance? These are not cut-and-dry factors, but they still give a sense of performance and preparation - and for that reason I think they're useful!

 

I totally understand the hesitance to boast or emphasize high scores in a competitive environment - and for what it's worth, unræd, I think that shows you're an awfully nice person (in addition to being astoundingly fancy). But I would be 100% behind a collaborative Google doc! I think that it's important to remember that the end goal of scholarship is, in actuality, the production of new knowledge - not competition or personal success. And we can produce new knowledge right here, right now, just by pooling our resources! So why not?

[Ramus]

While the "soft" areas of applications are both more important and less straight-forward, there are still ways to vet and compare. For example - did your paper win a prize? Was it published? Did three professors read you draft and give you the OK? Did you write it the night before your applications were due, or agonize 6 months in advance? These are not cut-and-dry factors, but they still give a sense of performance and preparation - and for that reason I think they're useful!

 

I think the idea of Google Doc for comparing some of these things is a great idea. I'd only add (and I think this proves the use value of a Google Doc over the results board) that conferences and publications in and of themselves don't count for much; the devil is in the details. In the past I've seen applicants fume on the results page with posts like "TWO PUBLICATIONS AND FIVE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, WTF HOW WAS I REJECTED."  I understand that the profession has inched towards the quantifiable, but presenting at a conference or publishing an essay doesn't count for beans if that conference was the Sigma Tau Delta conference or the journal was an online startup that began publishing last year (not trying to knock STD -- I presented at NOLA in 2012). I have to believe that programs still place a premium on good writing and good ideas over a ten-page CV. 

 

So I guess this is all to say that when considering or submitting details for this potential comparative file, I'd focus more on the softest issues -- the focus of hreathemus' last two questions I've quoted -- over the stuff that can be put down on the CV. Just my $.02.

[unræd]

I totally understand the hesitance to boast or emphasize high scores in a competitive environment - and for what it's worth, unræd, I think that shows you're an awfully nice person (in addition to being astoundingly fancy). But I would be 100% behind a collaborative Google doc! I think that it's important to remember that the end goal of scholarship is, in actuality, the production of new knowledge - not competition or personal success. And we can produce new knowledge right here, right now, just by pooling our resources! So why not?

 

Pshaw! I'll cop to being nice, but I draw the line at--and certainly hadn't intended to imply--being fancy!

 

But an appeal to research? Shucks, hreaðemus, them's the magic words.

[kurayamino]

I would definitely contribute to a google doc and I think focusing on the soft ares will be particularly helpful.
 

[zanmato4794]

I'd contribute to a google doc. We can obviously construct it so no names are involved.

 

I am very curious about how standardized testing factors in the process because I'm almost thinking that individual members of the committee may be lying to themselves about their own perceptions.

 

Let's say a Derridean applies to your program. His writing sample is very dense--lots of wordplay, perhaps some things that might be considered jumps in logic or nonstandard argument strategies, and only tangential relationship to politics and history, which would be a weakness since those are vaguely "in" right now.

 

I can't help but imagine that if a student with such a writing sample applies with, say, 155/149/4.5, that paper will be read entirely differently than if he applies with, say, 169/165/6.

 

Am I projecting too much when I imagine that in the first instance, the reader might be less merciful to what seem like errors, whereas in the latter instance the reader might be more inclined to double back on himself and think: Perhaps there is something here I missed the first time, I'll give it a second look?

 

I guess in short I'm saying that I think that besides being a relatively small deciding factor in themselves, I could also see standardized test scores as having kind of a larger ethos effect upon the entire application. If for example, like me, you had a difficult undergrad experience, you might rely on test scores to recast yourself as "troubled smartypants."