DO NOT apply to Wisconsin Madison

[GeoDUDE!]

Sorting applications by GPA and GRE requires looking at each applicant's GPA and GRE. That would constitute some "evaluation" of each application. My argument this whole time has been that every application should be evaluated.

 

 

Looking from where the application came from is then some sort of "evaluation" then. You have to look at the application to see where they come from right?

 

But the whole idea of "unethical" comes from the proposition that people spend time and money submitting this application and are somehow "owed" and evaluation, which they aren't. It is common knowledge, even in international universities that the submission of the application + Fee is good for processing. Most people know this, and its unfortunate that UW Madison isn't as upfront about this as other places, but because its common practice and they are allowed to evaluate applicants however they want I do not see it as unethical unless you think that having any sort of draconian measure is unethical. And that is a different discussion. 

[Eigen]

Actually, I believe you said several pages back that they deserved more than a cursory examination, but to be thoroughly examined. And I can guarantee you that "processing" at most universities includes sorting and ranking by pertinent information, before it makes it to the admissions committee. There is no application that goes completely ignored or unopened. Heck, our department even looks at applications that come in after classes have started for the academic year. Doesn't mean we'll take them, but we'll at least look.

 

To add more fuel to the fire, sorting many international students by GRE scores just doesn't happen. Cheating for GRE exams in some parts of the world is so widespread many schools don't take them seriously, and consider them completely differently on a country to country basis. 

 

As to the international vs domestic argument in cost:benefit terms, there are a couple of other things to consider- obviously some apply more to some countries or cultures than others:

• At least in some parts of the world, research (esp. safety) standards are quite different from the US. Most international students take a lot longer to get to working in the lab than US students.
• Academic honesty/dishonesty issues can be more of a concern due to cultural differences.
• From a prestige standpoint, not as many are interested in continuing as international academics, thus diminishing the future returns the school gets from it's alumni. 
• Bulk of the applications many schools receive are from international students, and most schools have policies like this in place to keep the ratio of international to domestic students around the 1:1 range. 

[Igotnothin]

It seems pretty clear to me that international applications to UW-Madison are frequently not reviewed. I'm basing this on the e-mail from UW-Madison saying that international applications are frequently not reviewed.

 

Hi X,

 

Thank you for your patience. We complete reviews, interviews, and admissions for applicants within the U.S. borders first. We then review external applicants. Frequently, this first phase fills the slots available. I will email you when a decision is made.

 

Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

X

[GeoDUDE!]

Igotnothing,

 

We understand your point, that you haven't changed since you first brought it up. The issue is that you are clearly wrong.

 

You are misinterpreting "review" for looking at an applicants application. I am willing to bet what ever form of currency you want that what the email means by "review" is a discussion in front of the admissions commitee, which takes a great deal of time.  Before it gets to the committee, the applicants have to be ranked. Often times, if you email an POI, they will bring your file to the committee despite your ranking. This is the name of the game. 

[Igotnothin]

Hi X,

 

Thank you for your patience. We complete reviews, interviews, and admissions for applicants within the U.S. borders first. We then review external applicants. Frequently, this first phase fills the slots available. I will email you when a decision is made.

 

Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

X

[Between Fields]

Hi X,

 

Thank you for your patience. We complete reviews, interviews, and admissions for applicants within the U.S. borders first. We then review external applicants. Frequently, this first phase fills the slots available. I will email you when a decision is made.

 

Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

X

 

How does continuing to quote this refute the arguments being made?

 

Also, it's entirely plausible that they review all of the files even after the slots have been filled to account for people deciding to attend elsewhere and to construct their waiting list. 

[TakeruK]

It would only make sense that applicants who applied after the deadline are reviewed after the rest...

As to the GPA/GRE cutoff and the preference to Biology degrees, universities always tell you that they review everything even though you have a low GPA or GRE and that they are happy to review people with different degrees. It is therefore unethical for them to throw the applications according to that because they told you they are going to review your application.

 

I disagree. The school said they will "review" your application and a check of the GPA and GRE and rejecting based on that counts as a review, in my opinion. You do not need to review the entire application in order to get a sense of whether or not it's in the top tier and needs further review. I am an international student (even though I'm "only" from Canada, applying to PhD schools in the US was the first time I ever had to write an admissions essay) and one of the schools rejected me saying sorry, we only had spots for 6 out of 150 applicants. I would highly doubt they thoroughly reviewed every single one of the 150 applications.

 

In general, when you have a large pool of applications, while it might be hard to say whether Applicant X is ranked 17th or 18th specifically, it is not that hard to determine whether or not an applicant is in the top 1/3, middle 1/3, or bottom 1/3 (or halves). If there are only something like 6 spots out of 150 applicants, it's probably only worth the admission committee's time to thoroughly review the top 1/3 (or even fewer). The rest of the applications would only be "reviewed" to the extent that they are triaged to the bottom 2/3rds and saved only if they need more spots filled. Indeed, some professors have written that they do not even open about half of the LORs they get (because they only review the top candidates): http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/01/30/the-gristmill-of-praise/?cid=gs&utm_source=gs&utm_medium=en

 

In addition, this "triage" step happens at all stages of academia. It happens for grant proposal review boards. It happens on hiring committees: (blog post from perspective of a newly hired prof: http://tenureshewrote.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/the-hiring-process-from-the-perspective-of-a-new-hire-part-i/ (part 2 is linked from there).

 

In all of these cases, not every candidate will get equal time spent reviewing their application. That's just how our world works. There are limits on the time we can spend discussing each candidate's application and everyone prefers to spend the time carefully separating the applications that are near the "accept/reject" border, and so some applications will be rejected with very little (but still non-zero) review.

 

I agree that schools should always be transparent about their admission standards, but it is not unethical for them to not spell it all out for applicants. Sometimes the criteria changes year-to-year and it would cause more harm to have wrong, outdated information than to have no information at all. For example, maybe in this particular year, the program has hired a couple of new professors in subfield X, so perhaps they are going to rank applicants for subfield X higher because those professors need students. I rarely see this level of information on application websites, and I don't think it's unethical at all for the school to not constantly disclose/update their research goals/direction.

[Vene]

Of course universities care. They want hard-working students. This is part of "what you can do".

And I'm not whining. I'm proud of my achievements. I am proud of having worked that hard. I'm not complaining about the procedure at all. I actually find it extremely rewarding to get accepted after such a hard and competitive admission process. All I am saying is that international students have to prove themselves even more... That was my whole point. Sorry you didn't get that...

I don't know, this thread reads an awful lot like whining. Your signature says you got into multiple top universities, I don't understand why UW-Madison is such a big deal to you.

 

And also, I never said that international students should be compared 1:1 with domestic students. Please show me where I said that.

I just said that universities are interested in having top students regardless of where they come from... I didn't say that they are able to accept students regardless of where they come from and I didn't say that they should.

I am absolutely positive that Wisconsin is interested in top international students and I am also absolutely positive they have international students in their programs. The process described here is just one of many ways to evaluate them, and yes, sorting applicants into piles of domestic versus international is an evaluation.

[Igotnothin]

Let's imagine an e-mail conversation between the applicant and a UW-Madison representative after the applicant hears that he was not admitted. 

 

 

Student: Thank you for considering my application. I know you are busy, but I was hoping to get some feedback on how I can improve my application next year. Is there anything in particular that was weak in my application?

 

Rep: We saw that you were an international applicant so we threw your application in the trash bin. Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

 

Americans on Grad Cafe: Stop whining, international students!

[Eigen]

You keep making strawman arguments. 

 

It doesn't make your points any more logical, or your assumptions any less fallacious. 

[Igotnothin]

I'm not the one saying things like "well maybe they actually did look at your GPA and GRE" when that's not what we're arguing. Or "well maybe the UW-Madison rep didn't know what she was talking about" when that is the basis of the entire scenario. Or "I think I saw you say that the committee should read every word of every application a few pages back..." when if I said that you could easily click Quote and prove it.

[ballwera]

Let's imagine an e-mail conversation between the applicant and a UW-Madison representative after the applicant hears that he was not admitted. 

 

 

Student: Thank you for considering my application. I know you are busy, but I was hoping to get some feedback on how I can improve my application next year. Is there anything in particular that was weak in my application?

 

Rep: We saw that you were an international applicant so we threw your application in the trash bin. Thank you for your interest in our program.

 

 

Americans on Grad Cafe: Stop whining, international students!

 

Again, if we were applying abroad, the majority of us would assume that we are at the bottom of the pile (thus considered last). 

[Vene]

Again, if we were applying abroad, the majority of us would assume that we are at the bottom of the pile (thus considered last). 

I know I'd expect to have to work harder to get into a university in the UK or France or Japan. Why should that country invest its resources on me unless I have something of great value to offer them?

[GeoDUDE!]

I'm not the one saying things like "well maybe they actually did look at your GPA and GRE" when that's not what we're arguing. Or "well maybe the UW-Madison rep didn't know what she was talking about" when that is the basis of the entire scenario. Or "I think I saw you say that the committee should read every word of every application a few pages back..." when if I said that you could easily click Quote and prove it.

 

 

I'm not convinced you actually understand what you are arguing. 

[TakeruK]

I am not an American and I still agree that you are trying to make this into a bigger deal than it is. When I was applying, I knew my chances at publicly funded state schools are crap. I didn't apply to UW-M, but I did apply to the University of California schools. I saw the stats--10% of grad students are international and their incoming class is about 5-6 students per year. That means I would not only have to be the best international student in the pool this year, I would also have to be better than whatever they think might apply the next year. Sure, I still applied to a few public schools, but as an international student, I did my due diligence and knew the factors I had to overcome. So, I adjusted my application strategy and applied to more private schools than public schools. I became most interested in the school I am now at, where 40% of graduate students are international. 

 

None of the schools told me this information -- I found this out by talking to professors, talking to students, reading online forums like this one to see stats. At PhysicsGRE.com, many people post the text of the rejection/acceptance letters like "We had X spots for Y applications" so that gave me a lot of ideas too. I believe that all of this work is part of the application process and is no different than doing your research to make sure the profs you want to work with are a good match for you etc. In that line of thought, I do think it is a good idea you originally wrote this thread. It's important to let other international students know that UW-M will de-prioritize their applications, in case they didn't already know. After all, it's places like this where I got my information in the first place. However, we don't agree that this is wrong at all.

 

I do feel that schools that require an interview should let applicants know about it ahead of time. No matter what they say, it's pretty obvious that an applicant who is able to make it to an in-person interview would have a much better chance at impressing professors than an applicant who can only do a Skype/Phone interview. So, if they let students know that an interview is to be expected, then students can decide if it's worth applying. I decided that I should check the UW-M genetics website to see if they mention interviews:

 

What factors do you evaluate in reviewing applications for admission?

The admissions committee gives each application careful consideration to get a sense of the total individual. We try to identify those students who have the right combination of academic ability, creativity, motivation, self-discipline, commitment, initiative, and personal skills to become successful researchers. Fluency in English is an important additional criterion for international students. To evaluate these criteria, we examine:

1. transcripts to gauge academic performance as well as the breadth,
   depth, and rigor of the undergraduate coursework;
2. GRE scores;
3. the applicant’s personal statement, which should include:
   • descriptions of why you have selected a career in Genetics;
   • what special accomplishments or qualifications you have that demonstrate your potential success in this field;
   • what your long term goals are;
4. letters of recommendation from individuals who are able to comment knowledgeably on your academic ability and research skills as well as on your maturity, drive, independence and other personal traits.

Students who meet our initial criteria for acceptance are invited to visit for a personal interview. After these interviews, the admissions committee meets again to make final decisions on the basis of all the available information. In the case of international students residing abroad, personal interviews are usually not possible. In that case, telephone interviews are often arranged.

 

So, from this text, it's clear that interviews were expected to happen!

Finally, this leads me to wondering something though. Are personal interviews a good practice? As I said above, doing personal interviews actually provides a huge advantage for students who are able to make it to an interview. This means international students, applicants who are currently working, applicants requiring childcare etc. are disadvantaged if they can't fly out for an interview. I know that some jobs in my field have eliminated the practice of in-person interviews for early rounds and instead, only do phone interviews for the initial rounds so that everyone is on a level playing field. This means my friends who apply for jobs in the same building actually have to call into the interview so that it's fair for everyone. They won't do in-person interviews until the number of candidates is small enough that they can accommodate everyone's needs (i.e. afford to fly everyone out, afford to pay for childcare where necessary, afford to make interview schedule fit around candidate's other ogli etc) so that again, everyone is on an equal playing field.

So, as I have said above, I definitely agree with you that UW-M does not follow what I consider to be "best practices" but they are certainly behaving within ethical bounds. In my opinion, I think you do have a valid point if you are simply trying to point out a way that UW-M can improve its transparency. However, this is very different from what many others have interpreted your tone of your posts, which is that UW-M has acted very wrongly and unethically.

[Justin123]

I know I'd expect to have to work harder to get into a university in the UK or France or Japan. Why should that country invest its resources on me unless I have something of great value to offer them?

That's the whole point. International students have to work harder to get into an American school. And universities invest money in us because we have something to offer. I'm glad you got to understand that... 

 

Again, if we were applying abroad, the majority of us would assume that we are at the bottom of the pile (thus considered last). 

 

Why? If you come from a great university, have excellent grades, recommendation letters, research experience? I'm sorry but professors would fight to have you in their labs. You clearly have no idea how universities work (at least outside of the US).

[GeoDUDE!]

 

Why? If you come from a great university, have excellent grades, recommendation letters, research experience? I'm sorry but professors would fight to have you in their labs. You clearly have no idea how universities work (at least outside of the US).

 

 

Publicly funded universities make it cheaper to educate citizens. Thats why.  It would be impossible for public universities to compete with private ones if they took all international students, even if they all were better than domestic because they would have to take half the amount of students. Having 10 Very good students can be better than having 4-5 great students because most universities see students as labor for professors. And its somewhat true.

[Justin123]

To be honest, I'm even more shocked by most of what I'm reading here than by what UWM did. Do I sense some xenophobia? 

 

Once again, I'm not whining about getting rejected from UWM. I don't care about this school anymore.  I think that they have a great program and from what I heard it seems like a great school. But it was my last choice. I stopped caring the second I got an interview at one of the other schools I applied to. I wouldn't be upset if I got rejected after being reviewed. I'm upset that they kept on telling me "we'll send invites in two weeks" every two weeks and that they told me that my application would get reviewed only if the first phase didn't fill all the slots available. I didn't post my story on gradcafe out of anger for a school that rejected me. I posted this so that people know what happened. If people think that UWM's attitude is ok, then good for you and you should apply if the program seems to be a good fit. But it was important for me to let people know about it. I would condemn any sort of unethical attitude of a person, company or school, even though it's not going to change ANYTHING in my life. 

[Justin123]

Publicly funded universities make it cheaper to educate citizens. Thats why.  It would be impossible for public universities to compete with private ones if they took all international students, even if they all were better than domestic because they would have to take half the amount of students. Having 10 Very good students can be better than having 4-5 great students because most universities see students as labor for professors. And its somewhat true.

Can people here have just a little intellectual honesty? Where on Earth did you read me saying that universities should take all international students?

[Justin123]

Publicly funded universities make it cheaper to educate citizens. Thats why.  It would be impossible for public universities to compete with private ones if they took all international students, even if they all were better than domestic because they would have to take half the amount of students. Having 10 Very good students can be better than having 4-5 great students because most universities see students as labor for professors. And its somewhat true.

You are basically against international students. You are ignoring all the advantages of having international students...

[ballwera]

You are basically against international students. You are ignoring all the advantages of having international students...

Where did you see him say he was against international students? You are basically just trolling at this point...

[Justin123]

Where did you see him say he was against international students? You are basically just trolling at this point...

Because he is (as well as you and others) are making this thread about whether schools should accept international students or not. 

[GeoDUDE!]

Because he is (as well as you and others) are making this thread about whether schools should accept international students or not. 

 

I don't think its wrong for public universities to prefer people who fund them (through taxes) over people who haven't contributed any money to the institution. Furthermore those tax payer dollars allow the schools to educate more students, and the goal of these universities is to educate its citizens. THAT IS THE SOLE REASON THEY EXIST.

 

Impressive international students are great! And Public Universities shouldn't lower their standards just to take domestic students, but that being said, its hard to justify educating international students (for many reasons) when there are many qualified domestic students who are cheaper and are more likely to preserve the mission of the school. 

 

That isn't being "against' international students. Thats just coping with realities. I love my international colleagues. Half my masters lab was international.  

Edited September 8, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Vene]

To be honest, I'm even more shocked by most of what I'm reading here than by what UWM did. Do I sense some xenophobia? 

International students are more expensive, so you can't expect publicly funded universities to take on many of them as the extra output a great international student provides isn't necessarily enough to justify their cost. They should have some internationals and I would be concerned about a program which literally has zero international students in it. Likewise, I'd be concerned about a public university putting international students at the same level of priority as domestic students and I think doing such also deviates from their mission and shows poor fiscal sense.

 

UWM's methodology isn't the best way to screen, I will happily grant that. But, factoring in the cost for interviews and/or for attendance during the application process is legitimate and it is also legitimate to look at the less expensive domestic students before even considering the more expensive international students. As long as they're not exclusively admitting domestic students there's nothing wrong with what they are doing.

[Justin123]

Why do I need to keep on repeating the same thing?

 

I'm not stupid. I know that international students are more expensive. And I completely understand why there are less international students who get admitted. Please let me know how to write this differently so that people understand that it seems logical to me that there are less international students. Should I say MUCH less international students to make people feel better about it? Ok you got it, MUCH less international students.

 

THAT IS NOT MY POINT. 

 

When I applied to Berkeley I knew that every year only 1-2 international students get admitted to the program I applied to (whereas 15 domestic students get admitted). I was aware that the UC schools have financial issues and that public schools are harder to get into for a PhD. It made me sad and all, but I still applied. I knew the chances were extremely low. I thought it was still worth trying. Got rejected. End of story.

 

If UWM doesn't want to admit international students, then they should be open about it from the beginning. And if UWM has two pools and if those in one of them get "frequently" rejected without even being reviewed then it's NOT ok UNLESS they are open about this unfair procedure from the beginning. In my case, Berkeley was worth trying, but I don't think I would have applied to UWM. I would have saved my money to apply to another school (I applied to 8 schools because I didn't want to spend too much, but there were more than 8 schools that I liked...)