DO NOT apply to Wisconsin Madison

[Igotnothin]

But what's P(A)? It's not 1.0!

 

True, the marginal probability of A is not 1, and the marginal probability of C is not 0. But whether A occurs or not has nothing to do with the merits of a particular international applicant. The conditional probability tells us that in some years, the probability of an international student getting accepted is 0, because stage 1 fills up all available spots. In that scenario the applicant has paid $130 in exchange for no evaluation and zero probability of acceptance. I see that as unfair.

[GeoDUDE!]

True, the marginal probability of A is not 1, and the marginal probability of C is not 0. But whether A occurs or not has nothing to do with the merits of a particular international applicant. The conditional probability tells us that in some years, the probability of an international student getting accepted is 0, because stage 1 fills up all available spots. In that scenario the applicant has paid $130 in exchange for no evaluation and zero probability of acceptance. I see that as unfair.

 

That probability isn't 0 at the time of application. It changes when they have found enough domestic applicants (or in other words) picked the qualified candidates they want. The same happens for lesser domestic applicants. That is the flaw in your reasoning.

Edited December 29, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Vene]

So the secret to getting into grad school is sending e-mails saying "I want to join your department." Learn something new every day!

Yep, that's how you do it. In fact, for many disciplines that is the only way to get accepted as you have to have an advisor willing to take you on prior to your admission. It's less common in the biomedical world, but is extremely common in organismal and ecological biology. It's also extremely common in the social sciences.

[Igotnothin]

That probability isn't 0 at the time of application. It changes when they have found enough domestic applicants (or in other words) picked the qualified candidates they want. The same happens for lesser domestic applicants. That is the flaw in your reasoning.

 

So discarding international applications without review is perfectly ethical as long as the decision to discard them is made after they are received. Brilliant.

[TakeruK]

So discarding international applications without review is perfectly ethical as long as the decision to discard them is made after they are received. Brilliant.

 

I know you are being sarcastic, but this is literally the essence why many people here think it's fine. It is the same as discarding any application with a GPA under 3.0 without any review (other than a computer filtering out GPAs under 3.0). I don't think the school acted unethically because at the time it was accepting applications, it was still considering international admissions. If the school knew ahead of time that there will be 0 international admissions and they accepted applications anyways, then it's unethical. If circumstances beyond their control led to 0 international admissions (and this information was only available after applications were due) then the school is ethically fine. 

[GeoDUDE!]

Furthermore, I would bet that many departments do this at state schools. No one is saying its perfect, but I think applicants are getting what they paid for, however little it is. 

[Igotnothin]

All right at least we know what the point of contention is. I disagree that international/domestic status is a "credential" similar to GPA or GRE. I realize that international applicants are held to a much higher standard than domestics for many graduate programs. But in my view there is a big difference between being held to a higher standard, and being automatically disqualified without review because 12 "good enough" domestic applicants are available. No matter how much weight you give to residency, you cannot conclude that a domestic applicant is "better" than an international applicant without looking at the international applicant's credentials.

[peachypie]

1.  How is it not a credential when it plays a role in the cost of that student?  the university and the government see these applicants differently.

2.  The above point is largely why i think international students are held to higher standards.  

3.  where did you get that the domestic applicants are "good enough"? No evidence that says they are better?  Maybe in this cycle the domestic applicants were all better/higher qualified/did more relevant work/talked to profs/visited the university/expressed a strong interest in the program...more so than the international applicants?

4.  No matter how much weight you give residency you CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT AN INTERNATIONAL APPLICANT IS 'BETTER' THAN A DOMESTIC APPLICANT.

[GeoDUDE!]

All right at least we know what the point of contention is. I disagree that international/domestic status is a "credential" similar to GPA or GRE. I realize that international applicants are held to a much higher standard than domestics for many graduate programs. But in my view there is a big difference between being held to a higher standard, and being automatically disqualified without review because 12 "good enough" domestic applicants are available. No matter how much weight you give to residency, you cannot conclude that a domestic applicant is "better" than an international applicant without looking at the international applicant's credentials.

 

There is no proof that the international applicants aren't given a quick look over to see if they are missing a generational candidate. There is no proof of the contrary either, as the definition of "review" seems to be vague, but the educated side of me wants to appeal to the better case scenario  where they do give them a quick look over, because why would i think about something miserable when there is no proof of the situation being miserable in the first place?

[Between Fields]

It's not about better or worse. It's not about fair or unfair, really. It's about money.

 

Tuition waivers are complicated, because they're somewhere between compensation and a scholarship. Some universities like mine don't charge graduate assistants more money for being out of state. Many do, though, and this is cost-prohibitive for departments with limited budgets and a fixed number of assistantships to hand out. If I need sixteen new graduate assistants to staff thirty-two courses, it's a non-starter to hire someone that takes three of my slots but is only able to fill two courses. 

 

The ways around that are a fellowship from the graduate school (very limited), a government grant (hard/impossible for international students to get), or external funding (possible). What all of these need, though, is direct contact with a POI and stellar grades. (The OP's master's grades seem pretty marginal, but that might be a discipline specific thing.) There's no indication that the OP talked with a POI or had any special research or publication credentials. So at most, he's as good as a domestic student.

 

Why would a school want to go through the trouble of finding the extra funding and dealing with immigration hassles if the first time they see an applicant's name is on the actual application? This seems like a failure to communicate properly on the applicants part more than an ethical failing in the school. If a nobel laureate's file doesn't get read because the admissions committee filled up the seats with domestic students, where was the applicant before the process started lining up POIs?

[Igotnothin]

1.  How is it not a credential when it plays a role in the cost of that student?  the university and the government see these applicants differently.

2.  The above point is largely why i think international students are held to higher standards.  

3.  where did you get that the domestic applicants are "good enough"? No evidence that says they are better?  Maybe in this cycle the domestic applicants were all better/higher qualified/did more relevant work/talked to profs/visited the university/expressed a strong interest in the program...more so than the international applicants?

4.  No matter how much weight you give residency you CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT AN INTERNATIONAL APPLICANT IS 'BETTER' THAN A DOMESTIC APPLICANT.

 

Regardless of how much higher the standard is for international applicants, the only way to see if an applicant meets that standard is to look at his or her credentials.

[TakeruK]

All right at least we know what the point of contention is. I disagree that international/domestic status is a "credential" similar to GPA or GRE. I realize that international applicants are held to a much higher standard than domestics for many graduate programs. But in my view there is a big difference between being held to a higher standard, and being automatically disqualified without review because 12 "good enough" domestic applicants are available. No matter how much weight you give to residency, you cannot conclude that a domestic applicant is "better" than an international applicant without looking at the international applicant's credentials.

 

You are right that residency status is not a "credential". That is, schools should not use an applicant's status (citizen, permanent resident, non-resident alien legally present in US, foreign national living abroad, etc.) to determine whether or not the candidate is qualified for admission. 

 

Therefore, I would agree with you if the only purpose of graduate student admission to seek out the best qualified candidates and admit them to the program.

 

However, this is not the way graduate admissions work. In fact, this is not the way academia (or any workplace really) works! I'll say it again: The goal of graduate admission is not to seek the best qualified candidates. Instead, most graduate programs seek to admit the best fitting candidates to meet the goals of that program. I'll give examples for both graduate admissions and for post-PhD academic jobs.

 

Sometimes the goals of the program are academic: sometimes programs are looking to admit a graduate student in a certain subfield, or with a certain qualification. This is an example where a program might admit someone with lower GPA, GRE and even research experience all because they want someone willing to work on Subfield X when better qualified candidates all want to work on Y but Y is over-subscribed. You see this on the academic job market as well. I know plenty of highly qualified PhD graduates and post-docs who cannot find jobs because their subfield is not hiring, while other subfields are much less selective.

 

Sometimes, the goals of the program are driven by policy. As others said above, publicly funded state universities have a mandate to educate their citizens. It's perfectly reasonable to reject highly qualified international or out-of-state applicants because you need to meet your goals of providing service to domestic applicants. It could be that the funding source the program must use that year for new students are for Americans only. In almost every academic job posting that has government funding, you will see a line that says something like "All applicants are invited to apply, but preference will be given to citizens of Canada/United States/EU/etc.". This is a reality of the world we live in -- even though the intellectual side of academia has no borders, the practical sides is very political and grant money (or donations) often comes with many many strings attached. 

 

Sometimes the goals of the program are driven by practical non-academic reasons. The examples here will be mostly for post-PhD jobs because graduate students rarely have this much negotiating power for admissions. For example, perhaps the school might have 2 postdoc openings with a salary of $50k. They might really want to recruit a particular candidate but that candidate might have a competing offer of $55k, so the school decides to match that offer but now they only have $45k leftover. The school might then decide to make the $45k offer to candidates lower in their list because they are more likely to accept their lowball offer. 

 

Basically, what I am saying is that you should not expect graduate school admissions to be a pure meritocracy. Being the best qualified candidate does not mean you will get admitted. The above examples are just a few factors not related to applicants' qualifications that are important in making both admission decisions and academic job hiring decisions. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and it's definitely not just in academia. These factors are important in many workplaces outside of academia. 

 

Making decisions based on factors other than qualifications is not unethical. Again, if the school knew for a fact ahead of time that they will not be admitting students with attribute X, then accepting applications from students with attribute X would be unethical. But if they cannot know for sure at time of application because the information is not available until later, then I don't see an ethical problem. 

[Igotnothin]

There is no proof that the international applicants aren't given a quick look over to see if they are missing a generational candidate. There is no proof of the contrary either, as the definition of "review" seems to be vague, but the educated side of me wants to appeal to the better case scenario  where they do give them a quick look over, because why would i think about something miserable when there is no proof of the situation being miserable in the first place?

 

So we're back to the argument about whether the international apps really were looked at. You have a funny feeling that the representative from UW gave false information. Okay.

[Igotnothin]

You are right that residency status is not a "credential". That is, schools should not use an applicant's status (citizen, permanent resident, non-resident alien legally present in US, foreign national living abroad, etc.) to determine whether or not the candidate is qualified for admission. 

 

Therefore, I would agree with you if the only purpose of graduate student admission to seek out the best qualified candidates and admit them to the program.

 

However, this is not the way graduate admissions work. In fact, this is not the way academia (or any workplace really) works! I'll say it again: The goal of graduate admission is not to seek the best qualified candidates. Instead, most graduate programs seek to admit the best fitting candidates to meet the goals of that program. I'll give examples for both graduate admissions and for post-PhD academic jobs.

 

Sometimes the goals of the program are academic: sometimes programs are looking to admit a graduate student in a certain subfield, or with a certain qualification. This is an example where a program might admit someone with lower GPA, GRE and even research experience all because they want someone willing to work on Subfield X when better qualified candidates all want to work on Y but Y is over-subscribed. You see this on the academic job market as well. I know plenty of highly qualified PhD graduates and post-docs who cannot find jobs because their subfield is not hiring, while other subfields are much less selective.

 

Sometimes, the goals of the program are driven by policy. As others said above, publicly funded state universities have a mandate to educate their citizens. It's perfectly reasonable to reject highly qualified international or out-of-state applicants because you need to meet your goals of providing service to domestic applicants. It could be that the funding source the program must use that year for new students are for Americans only. In almost every academic job posting that has government funding, you will see a line that says something like "All applicants are invited to apply, but preference will be given to citizens of Canada/United States/EU/etc.". This is a reality of the world we live in -- even though the intellectual side of academia has no borders, the practical sides is very political and grant money (or donations) often comes with many many strings attached. 

 

Sometimes the goals of the program are driven by practical non-academic reasons. The examples here will be mostly for post-PhD jobs because graduate students rarely have this much negotiating power for admissions. For example, perhaps the school might have 2 postdoc openings with a salary of $50k. They might really want to recruit a particular candidate but that candidate might have a competing offer of $55k, so the school decides to match that offer but now they only have $45k leftover. The school might then decide to make the $45k offer to candidates lower in their list because they are more likely to accept their lowball offer. 

 

Basically, what I am saying is that you should not expect graduate school admissions to be a pure meritocracy. Being the best qualified candidate does not mean you will get admitted. The above examples are just a few factors not related to applicants' qualifications that are important in making both admission decisions and academic job hiring decisions. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and it's definitely not just in academia. These factors are important in many workplaces outside of academia. 

 

Making decisions based on factors other than qualifications is not unethical. Again, if the school knew for a fact ahead of time that they will not be admitting students with attribute X, then accepting applications from students with attribute X would be unethical. But if they cannot know for sure at time of application because the information is not available until later, then I don't see an ethical problem. 

 

Whether we're talking about "better qualified" or "better fit," the only way you can make the comparison is to look at both the domestic and international applications. You mention that a department might choose a student with slightly lower GPA and GRE than a different student because the first student is interested in an area that the department specializes in, or wants more students to work on. But in order to compare the research areas of a domestic applicant vs. an international applicant you have to read both applications. 

[gliaful]

 

The Program expects each international applicant to find a Neuroscience Graduate Program faculty mentor who is willing to commit financial support for the student, before the deadline date of November 1. Typically, successful international applicants begin this process during the year prior to applying to our program. A letter from the faculty mentor stating his or her willingness to support the student should be submitted along with the general application. (UW Neuroscience Admissions)

UW didn't review all of their applications, no. But they DID NOT say that the those which were not reviewed belonged to international students.

They said they were lucky to review half of the applications that come in.

International students have an earlier deadline than domestic students: November 1st vs December 1st.

If applications are reviewed in the order in which they are submitted, then the applications submitted last (in the interval of Nov 1 - Dec 1) likely comprise those applications that weren't reviewed. And who did those applications come from? Domestic students.

[TakeruK]

Whether we're talking about "better qualified" or "better fit," the only way you can make the comparison is to look at both the domestic and international applications. You mention that a department might choose a student with slightly lower GPA and GRE than a different student because the first student is interested in an area that the department specializes in, or wants more students to work on. But in order to compare the research areas of a domestic applicant vs. an international applicant you have to read both applications. 

 

Sorry for the confusion -- my examples were just a bunch of possible reasons where a "less qualified" candidate can be admitted due to better fit, to show that it is reasonable and common for schools to use factors that do not indicate applicant quality in making their decision. This academic example does not directly apply to the current situation being discussed but I presented these examples to show that the situation under discussion (deciding admission based on residency status) is in fact a subset of the more general practice of "deciding admission based on factors other than qualification.

 

The example that does directly relate to this situation is the one related to citizenship status. If the program has a maximum quota of 10 international students at any time, and the one(s) that are expected to graduate in June encounters a setback which will delay their graduation by a year then there is simply no more room for international students no matter how qualified, and thus no review beyond checking the citizenship line is necessary. Or, if the University suddenly reduces the quota of international students. Or, if the funding source changes its requirements. Or, if the University/department decides to change its goals -- maybe they want to market themselves as prioritizing Americans more for one reason or another. 

[Igotnothin]

UW didn't review all of their applications, no. But they DID NOT say that the those which were not reviewed belonged to international students.

They said they were lucky to review half of the applications that come in.

International students have an earlier deadline than domestic students: November 1st vs December 1st.

If applications are reviewed in the order in which they are submitted, then the applications submitted last (in the interval of Nov 1 - Dec 1) likely comprise those applications that weren't reviewed. And who did those applications come from? Domestic students.

 

This is good new information for the specific case at UW. It's strange that it seems to contradict the e-mail that Justin123 received from the department. Maybe that two-stage system was only referring to applications from students who did not find a faculty member to provide financial support. Wonder if international applicants who do find financial support bypass the competitive evaluation and just get accepted (maybe provided they meet certain minimum criteria).

[Igotnothin]

Sorry for the confusion -- my examples were just a bunch of possible reasons where a "less qualified" candidate can be admitted due to better fit, to show that it is reasonable and common for schools to use factors that do not indicate applicant quality in making their decision. This academic example does not directly apply to the current situation being discussed but I presented these examples to show that the situation under discussion (deciding admission based on residency status) is in fact a subset of the more general practice of "deciding admission based on factors other than qualification.

 

The example that does directly relate to this situation is the one related to citizenship status. If the program has a maximum quota of 10 international students at any time, and the one(s) that are expected to graduate in June encounters a setback which will delay their graduation by a year then there is simply no more room for international students no matter how qualified, and thus no review beyond checking the citizenship line is necessary. Or, if the University suddenly reduces the quota of international students. Or, if the funding source changes its requirements. Or, if the University/department decides to change its goals -- maybe they want to market themselves as prioritizing Americans more for one reason or another. 

 

I see what you're saying. Personally I feel that even if departments give weight to factors that aren't really credentials (residency, race/ethnicity, etc.), you would hope that an applicant of any residency or race/ethnicity would still have a shot at acceptance. Sort of like in medical school admissions where it's harder for Asian applicants to get in because schools want a more balanced demographic than what they would get if they went off of credentials alone. That situation itself is very controversial (e.g. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/lawsuits-challenge-affirmative-action-as-discriminatory-against-asian-americans/). But at least there the really outstanding Asian applicants still have a shot. In UW's two-stage scenario international applicants are outright excluded (some years). I was actually thinking that UW could get itself into legal trouble here. As a prior poster mentioned, it's really surprising that the representative was so honest in his or her e-mail to the OP.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Igotnothin

[TakeruK]

I see what you're saying. Personally I feel that even if departments give weight to factors that aren't really credentials (residency, race/ethnicity, etc.), you would hope that an applicant of any residency or race/ethnicity would still have a shot at acceptance. Sort of like in medical school admissions where it's harder for Asian applicants to get in because schools want a more balanced demographic than what they would get if they went off of credentials alone. That situation itself is very controversial (e.g. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/lawsuits-challenge-affirmative-action-as-discriminatory-against-asian-americans/). But at least there the really outstanding Asian applicants still have a shot. In UW's two-stage scenario international applicants are outright excluded (some years). I was actually thinking that UW could get itself into legal trouble here. As a prior poster mentioned, it's really surprising that the representative was so honest in his or her e-mail to the OP.

 

I agree with you that in my ideal world, I would also have it so that an outstanding applicant, regardless of any attribute, would have a chance at admission. But our ideal world is not the only world that is "ethical". I'm simply arguing for the statement that schools like Wisconsin are not being unethical if they end up not being able to review international applications at all because domestic applicants filled all their spots. As long as they didn't accept applications when they knew for certain that they would not admit any international students.

 

I also agree that there are parallels with the controversy you linked to. Namely, at almost every campus in the US, there are debates about diversity (not just Asian-Americans but other minority groups too). But I want to point out there is one important thing to keep in mind when trying to make parallels between these two situations: Asian-Americans (or African-Americans or other miniority groups) are still Americans. In places with Affirmative Action laws, certain groups are considered "Under-represented Minorities" (URM) and people are trying to implement programs that will encourage hiring/admitting the qualified people URM people and looking into ways that the system might be (unconsciously) putting URM people at an unfair disadvantage.

 

But note that only Americans qualify as URM. For example, a Latino-American is considered part of a URM group, however, an international student from Mexico is not. There are very few documented programs that worry about representation of international (non-American) students in the United States. So, it is important to remember this because this distinction drives a lot of the policy that schools and programs must adhere to.

[GeoDUDE!]

I see what you're saying. Personally I feel that even if departments give weight to factors that aren't really credentials (residency, race/ethnicity, etc.), you would hope that an applicant of any residency or race/ethnicity would still have a shot at acceptance. Sort of like in medical school admissions where it's harder for Asian applicants to get in because schools want a more balanced demographic than what they would get if they went off of credentials alone. That situation itself is very controversial (e.g. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/lawsuits-challenge-affirmative-action-as-discriminatory-against-asian-americans/). But at least there the really outstanding Asian applicants still have a shot. In UW's two-stage scenario international applicants are outright excluded (some years). I was actually thinking that UW could get itself into legal trouble here. As a prior poster mentioned, it's really surprising that the representative was so honest in his or her e-mail to the OP.

 

I agree with the sentiment, with the exception that at a state school domestic applicants pay taxes to fund that school. 

 

In the early 1900s, the same thing happens to my people, the Jews. At one point the incoming classes at Harvard were 50% Jewish, so instead of just using GPA and test scores, they switched to a more holistic approach and reduced it to 30%.  They also implemented quotas: It was Richard Feynman's dream to go to Columbia University, but he wasn't one of the 6 jews selected, so he ended up at MIT instead. 

 

But that kind of discrimination (based on ethnicity) is different than what people are accusing Wisconsin of. 

 

There is a clear difference between citizenship and ethnicity. I do not believe it is wrong for a government (ala state school) to prefer its own citizens (who fund it) over someone who does not. The school would not exist without its tax payers, and thus, should serve them foremost.

 

That does not mean I think the university should take unqualified candidates because of their citizenship, or refuse to take exceptional candidates just because they were born somewhere else. Obviously you need great scientists to run a great lab, and that should be the goal. But numbers aren't everything, and thats largely the difference between international candidates and domestic. 

 

I think there is no evidence here of the university taking money from students knowing that they will not review their application, no matter what definition of "review" we use. 

[peachypie]

Regardless of how much higher the standard is for international applicants, the only way to see if an applicant meets that standard is to look at his or her credentials.

Still don't see evidence that they didn't.  

[Igotnothin]

True that there is a difference in issues of discrimination when you're talking about race/ethnicity groups within a country and applicants from other countries. So I might not go quite as far as to say that UW's practices are unconstitutional or illegal. I feel they are unethical, but that is my opinion.

 

peachypie, this debate is not solely focused on Justin123's experience. Nobody is trying to prove that his application was not reviewed. We are dealing with the Wisconsin representative's statement that frequently international applications are not reviewed.

[Igotnothin]

I agree with the sentiment, with the exception that at a state school domestic applicants pay taxes to fund that school. 

 

In the early 1900s, the same thing happens to my people, the Jews. At one point the incoming classes at Harvard were 50% Jewish, so instead of just using GPA and test scores, they switched to a more holistic approach and reduced it to 30%.  They also implemented quotas: It was Richard Feynman's dream to go to Columbia University, but he wasn't one of the 6 jews selected, so he ended up at MIT instead. 

 

But that kind of discrimination (based on ethnicity) is different than what people are accusing Wisconsin of. 

 

There is a clear difference between citizenship and ethnicity. I do not believe it is wrong for a government (ala state school) to prefer its own citizens (who fund it) over someone who does not. The school would not exist without its tax payers, and thus, should serve them foremost.

 

That does not mean I think the university should take unqualified candidates because of their citizenship, or refuse to take exceptional candidates just because they were born somewhere else. Obviously you need great scientists to run a great lab, and that should be the goal. But numbers aren't everything, and thats largely the difference between international candidates and domestic. 

 

I think there is no evidence here of the university taking money from students knowing that they will not review their application, no matter what definition of "review" we use. 

 

Fair enough. One point, if you do not feel that the university should refuse exceptional candidates just because they were born somewhere else, there needs to be a way to spot the exceptional candidates. So you still have to look at the application.

[Pol]

Fair enough. One point, if you do not feel that the university should refuse exceptional candidates just because they were born somewhere else, there needs to be a way to spot the exceptional candidates. So you still have to look at the application.

 

 

You dense ***********.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Pol

[elkheart]

I'm arguing about the general scenario where a school uses a 2-stage evaluation whereby in some years the international apps aren't even reviewed. They pay $130 for an automatic rejection.

So discarding international applications without review is perfectly ethical as long as the decision to discard them is made after they are received. Brilliant.

n my view there is a big difference between being held to a higher standard, and being automatically disqualified without review because 12 "good enough" domestic applicants are available.

We are dealing with the Wisconsin representative's statement that frequently international applications are not reviewed.

 

 

Not reviewed? Holy Christ. Read the email!

 

1. We complete reviews, interviews, and admissions for applicants within the U.S. borders first.

2. We then review external applicants. 

3. Frequently, [the] first phase fills the slots available.

 

Clearly they review all applicants - that corresponds to steps one and two. If you're not getting that then you're simply not reading the adcom's email. 

 

Whether offers are sent to the qualified international applicants depends on that year's stock of domestic applicants (which they can only learn about after completing step one). Frequently there are a sufficient number of qualified domestic applicants, so no offers are made to any external ones, regardless of what their qualifications might be. That is precisely what the email in question states.

 

This is a sensible and 'ethical' scheme if you consider that the job of a public school is to first serve domestic applicants. It also makes sense in light of the fact that international applicants typically cost the school much more, regardless of their application strength. 

 

A similar scheme could be used for applicants with high versus low GPAs. (Simplistic model: They give all the offers to folks with 4.0s if they get enough applicants with 4.0s. If not, they give offers to folks with lower GPAs.) Or the same with GRE scores, or with research experience, or with publications. 

 

Suppose UC Berkeley actually used my simplistic 4.0 GPA model. Would it then follow that someone with a 3.7 should not bother applying to UCB? (No, my friend, they should still apply if the program is right for them. They might get in - but it depends on who else is applying, like with any scheme). 

 

 

A = event that all spots are filled by domestic students in stage 1 in a given year.

B = event that international applications are evaluated in a given year.

C = event that at least one international student is accepted in a given year.

 

P(B|A) = 0

P(C|A) = 0

 

 

P(B|A) does not equal zero. Read. The. Effing. Email.

Edited December 30, 2014 by elkheart