DO NOT apply to Wisconsin Madison

[Igotnothin]

You're saying that they still look at international applications even if they already filled all their spots with domestics in stage 1? Why on earth would they do that - to pass the time?

[GeoDUDE!]

You're saying that they still look at international applications even if they already filled all their spots with domestics in stage 1? Why on earth would they do that - to pass the time?

 

To make sure they aren't missing out on a generational candidate (like a Feynman). This has been said before.  

[gliaful]

You're saying that they still look at international applications even if they already filled all their spots with domestics in stage 1? Why on earth would they do that - to pass the time?

What Geodude said, but also because that's what you paid $130 for.

[Igotnothin]

We've come full circle. Need I remind you that this is a debate about the ethics of rejection without review? Not rejection with review.

[elkheart]

Right. That is why you're wrong. There is no rejection without review. That is what everyone has been saying the whole time. 

 

And to further answer your "why review" question: because sending out offers to domestic applicants is not the same thing as having them accept those offers. 

[Igotnothin]

There is no rejection without review. In a way, that is a perfect way to end this whole thing. Let's assume the Wisconsin representative gave false information, and that truly all applications get reviewed every year. Then there is nothing to disagree on. Perfect.

[GeoDUDE!]

There is no rejection without review. In a way, that is a perfect way to end this whole thing. Let's assume the Wisconsin representative gave false information, and that truly all applications get reviewed every year. Then there is nothing to disagree on. Perfect.

 

 

The representative never said that international applicants weren't reviewed.

 

You have brought up good points, regardless, and perhaps you might gain some ground next time if your insights weren't littered with immature piths. 

[Between Fields]

The number of rhetorical fallacies you have been displaying is amusing. If you read the email, as some have suggested that you did not, the representative did say that international applicants would be reviewed. You're trying to set it up that other people are arguing that it's okay to reject applications without review, when people are actually saying that international status is an acceptable criterion to use in the decision making process, contingent on the realities of the education system we have.

[Igotnothin]

So remind me why we were discussing the distinction between the department knowing ahead of time it would not evaluate the international applications, and not knowing until after going through the domestics? Seems to me you're changing the scope of the debate. I don't know what exactly you're trying to change it to. Now you're saying that all applications are evaluated. If that was the case, what would there be to debate?

[Igotnothin]

Just a sample of posts regarding ethics of rejection without review.

 

If the bar one year is exceptionally high from the profiles of the cheap students (aka domestic and permanent residents) then no one else will be considered. It is exactly the same as having a GPA cutoff. They are in no way obligated to do anything and when they have everyone they need, they stop wasting time looking for more. 

 

There is only X amount of funding, once its gone, then there is NO MORE money to give. Why bother reviewing applications when you can't offer any more admissions?

 

 

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?

 

 

I think your conclusion doesn't quite follow, nothing here said internationals never get further review, but that they get lower priority and it's possible for there to be a sufficient number of domestic students who fill the slots. If not, then they are considered.

 

The application fee is supposed to be the fee for having the application reviewed. So if he pays the fee, but doesn't have his application reviewed, what is he paying for?

 

In my opinion, it is ethical for a grad school to accept a $100 application fee, if at the time of the application solicitation, they had every intention of reviewing each candidate for admission .... So, they might only review these applicants by determining that yes they are international and then reject (or put aside in case things change again).

 

 

On the first part, a fee does not entitle you to a review. It's for processing, it does not pay for the admissions committee to review your application. 

 

On the second part, even if the fee does not entitle you to a review, you might still feel put out if your application wasn't even reviewed. 

 

 

1) The email you described above shows that they expect to review external applicants at least some of the time. There is no way of knowing before hand how many quality applicants from the first round will accept, and, if there are enough quality applicants from the first round.

 

 

processing = acceptance of the application. It does not involve any evaluation. 

 

 

Besides, the application was reviewed to at least some degree as when an applicant is classified as an international student they have been, strictly speaking, reviewed. What degree of review is required for it to be ethical to accept the fee?

 

 

How can they predict how many quality domestic (or close) applicants they have in a given year? This seems pretty standard to me. And where does it say the application fee is for review of the application, and not just the processing (which is being accepted by the program coordinator)?

[GeoDUDE!]

So remind me why we were discussing the distinction between the department knowing ahead of time it would not evaluate the international applications, and not knowing until after going through the domestics? Seems to me you're changing the scope of the debate. I don't know what exactly you're trying to change it to. Now you're saying that all applications are evaluated. If that was the case, what would there be to debate?

 

 

Because you think it is unethical to accept money from someone for an application that has 0 chance of acceptance. At the time of the deadline, before any applications are reviewed, there is no way of knowing if there are enough quality domestic applicants to fill the first phase. Therefore, there is a non zero probability. That probability changes depending on the initial review.

 

This idea completely contradicts the idea that they took an applicants money without having any intention of accepting them. 

 

Another way to look at this is that international students have been accepted , therefore there is intention to accept some international students. 

 

We can think of people as the evil empire, but that would be a waste of our education. What is the point of education if we cannot think of things that make us happy when we aren't presented with any evidence (or reason) to the contrary?

 

The nature of your questioning begs another: Have you even read any of our arguments? Or furthermore, attempted to understand them?

[Igotnothin]

Because you think it is unethical to accept money from someone for an application that has 0 chance of acceptance. At the time of the deadline, before any applications are reviewed, there is no way of knowing if there are enough quality domestic applicants to fill the first phase. Therefore, there is a non zero probability. That probability changes depending on the initial review.

 

This idea completely contradicts the idea that they took an applicants money without having any intention of accepting them. 

 

Another way to look at this is that international students have been accepted , therefore there is intention to accept some international students. 

 

We can think of people as the evil empire, but that would be a waste of our education. What is the point of education if we cannot think of things that make us happy when we aren't presented with any evidence (or reason) to the contrary?

 

The nature of your questioning begs another: Have you even read any of our arguments? Or furthermore, attempted to understand them?

 

 

All right good to see that you switched back over to acknowledging that frequently international applications don't get reviewed.

 

Now you're saying it's not unethical to throw international apps away if you managed to find "good enough" domestic applications in stage 1. You don't seem to be concerned with the fact that there is no way to spot outstanding international applicants, and in fact no reason to believe that the domestics you chose were better in any way than the internationals you didn't look at. You are also not concerned about the fact that in the one year an international applicant applies to UW, he or she may not get evaluated for reasons completely out of his or her control. You think this applicant should not be upset because in other years international applicants do get reviewed. Your fourth paragraph seems to be a commentary on life which makes me wonder if you were watching a motivational speaker on TV this morning.

[GeoDUDE!]

That is not what I said at all. Please read carefully what is below. 

 

Before it was shown that even if all the first phase fills the spots, the international applicants are reviewed. You stated it doesn't matter because their probability of acceptance is 0. I just showed you that at the time of spending the money that the international applicants probability of acceptance is greater than 0. 

 

There is still no proof that applicants aren't all reviewed, there is only proof that some(or many) years offers are made to only domestic student.

 

Your going to quote that email to me again, and we will all roll our eyes as it has been explained before that nothing in that email contradicts what I just explained. 

 

This has been the entire argument in the thread, minus your straw man attempts and sarcastic remarks. 

Edited December 30, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Between Fields]

An analogy: My Ford Fiesta Titanium cost $17,815 and it's great for my life. If I had kids or more demand for cargo space, it wouldn't be that useful. A Tesla Model S costs $71,070 in its base configuration and is arguably a better car in a lot of different ways, but costs four times as much as the Fiesta. I didn't look at the Model S when I was making my decision on what car to buy, and still got a pretty great car. The quality of the more expensive car was made irrelevant by the magnitude by which it was more expensive, and so I didn't look in depth at its specs.

 

In graduate admissions and funding, cost is a factor and there is no getting around that. If a school can't afford any international applicants one year, I wouldn't expect them to review those files. That's always a risk and savvy international applicants would be aware of that reality. The funding decisions that would let them know that they don't have money for those students likely wouldn't occur until after applications have already been accepted. No one has said that a stellar international applicant shouldn't have a shot, and it's even been shown that after domestic offers have been sent out Madison does review international applicants. 

 

The fact is that applications don't get reviewed by the committee for any number of reasons (improper postage, missing pieces, low GRE, low GPA, rudeness during the process, things being held up in translation, etc.) and most of those reasons are on the fault of the applicant not communicating well enough with the program, but also because the committee has other responsibilities and if they get 1000 applications for 15 slots, some amount of sorting by the school is necessary. In Madison's case, international status is one of the qualifying factors for this sorting.

[Applemiu]

I have reread the original post and I think that, while the language is sometimes over the top, the OP has a point. The university should have warned beforehand that admission rates for international students are very low and that in some years, due to funding issues, international students are not admitted at all. Some graduate programs or fellowships do exactly that. I am an international student myself and after reading a similar statement on a fellowships website, I decided not to apply. As an international student, I appreciate the OP's warning, and now I appreciate even more those universities that warn the students in advance (I use to be slightly upset/disappointed).

[TakeruK]

Another analogy:

 

You are accepted to three schools, X, Y and Z, and all three schools paid for you to visit them and consider their program for matriculation. You know that you are more likely to attend schools X or Y, but school Z isn't out of the question. Each of the school paid for your costs up front (made flight booking etc. for you). Some time later, but before the visit begin, you realise that you can no longer accept School Z's offer because of whatever reason (maybe your SO didn't get into any schools near Z, or family issues means you have to stay close to home, etc.). Because of this, you cancel your visit with Z (i.e. you do not review their program for your matriculation decision).

 

Is it unethical that you took School Z's money (in the form of the flight booking)? Should you refund them the cost of their cancellation fee? 

 

No, because at the time when you accepted their offer to visit, there was still a chance you would accept Z. It is only later that you find out you can no longer take Z's offer. Getting rejected by you without a visit is the risk that Z decided to take when they made your booking in advance.

 

 

I have reread the original post and I think that, while the language is sometimes over the top, the OP has a point. The university should have warned beforehand that admission rates for international students are very low and that in some years, due to funding issues, international students are not admitted at all. Some graduate programs or fellowships do exactly that. I am an international student myself and after reading a similar statement on a fellowships website, I decided not to apply. As an international student, I appreciate the OP's warning, and now I appreciate even more those universities that warn the students in advance (I use to be slightly upset/disappointed).

 

I definitely think all Universities should be more transparent and open about their admission process. It would be nice if they did warn applicants that very few international students are admitted. In my field, a lot of schools are very clear about this -- they say that they admit 5-6 students per year, and that on average, 10% of their grad student population are international. This is a very clear statement that on average, only one international student is admitted every 2 years. When I read that (I'm an international student too), I appreciated the warning because I knew not to get my hopes up and to apply to a lot of backup schools.

 

However, while I think ideally, Universities should post this info, I do not believe it is each department's responsibility to do so. I think it is the applicant's responsibility to do their due diligence and do this research. Thus, I do not think it is unethical for the department not to indicate this prior to the application. Otherwise, what else should they warn students about? The fact that < 10% of graduates will get a tenure tracked job? The fact that working as an adjunct professor could pay almost minimum wage? The fact that Prof X is a terrible supervisor and no one should work with them? The fact that subfield Z is dying and no one will hire in 5 years? All these choices and factors are the applicant's responsibility. For example, the school I am currently at has a whopping ~45% international population, which was something I was very happy to find out when I was researching this school. It indicated to me that this might be my best opportunity so I worked really hard on this one. 

 

That said, I do think it is the University's responsibility to publish school-wide stats though, such as the number of total grad students, the number of grad students accepted each year, and the fraction of international grad students. This information is usually generally available, and U. Wisconsin definitely has all of it--I checked when this post was originally started. Universities have to publish this information so that students can make informed decisions.

 

---

 

Overall, to be clear about what I'm trying to say:

 

1. If a school collects applications and application fees from international students, I think it is not unethical to reject them without review (other than to sort them by international status) as long as the school actually did intend to review the applications at the time of application. See my previous posts and the above analogy.

 

2. However, it is not good/ideal/best practice either. I agree with everyone that says the school could have been more transparent about this. I just don't think it's unethical if they do not. 

 

3. But I do think the University should be required to make school-wide stats available on graduate student admissions. This is not as helpful as department-by-department stats but it is much easier for the aggregate stats to be compiled. Also, for very small departments, I'd be worried that no useful numbers can be reported.

[ballwera]

 

 

That said, I do think it is the University's responsibility to publish school-wide stats though, such as the number of total grad students, the number of grad students accepted each year, and the fraction of international grad students. This information is usually generally available, and U. Wisconsin definitely has all of it--I checked when this post was originally started. Universities have to publish this information so that students can make informed decisions.

 

 

 

I really wish more schools would do this. The only school I've found that does is Duke. 

 

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/program-statistics

[Igotnothin]

That is not what I said at all. Please read carefully what is below. 

 

Before it was shown that even if all the first phase fills the spots, the international applicants are reviewed. You stated it doesn't matter because their probability of acceptance is 0. I just showed you that at the time of spending the money that the international applicants probability of acceptance is greater than 0. 

 

There is still no proof that applicants aren't all reviewed, there is only proof that some(or many) years offers are made to only domestic student.

 

Your going to quote that email to me again, and we will all roll our eyes as it has been explained before that nothing in that email contradicts what I just explained. 

 

This has been the entire argument in the thread, minus your straw man attempts and sarcastic remarks. 

 

Come on man you can do better than that. You're arguing that even when UW fills its spots in stage 1 (and thus cannot possibly accept any international students) they go through and read the international applications anyway. That's ridiculous. And even if they did decide to waste their time doing that, it's equivalent to a non-review because either way the internationals have 0 chance of acceptance.

[Igotnothin]

1. If a school collects applications and application fees from international students, I think it is not unethical to reject them without review (other than to sort them by international status) as long as the school actually did intend to review the applications at the time of application. See my previous posts and the above analogy.

 

2. However, it is not good/ideal/best practice either. I agree with everyone that says the school could have been more transparent about this. I just don't think it's unethical if they do not. 

 

Thanks for clearly stating your viewpoints. I know that intent is oftentimes considered in determining whether an action is ethical (e.g. legal system). But my view is that intent doesn't really matter from the perspective of the international applicant who get rejected without review. Obviously I'd be more upset if I found out UW never looks at the international apps despite accepting the app fees - that would be clearly unethical and probably illegal. But I'd still be pretty upset if I found out that the year I applied they didn't look at them. In either scenario UW isn't looking at my application.

[TakeruK]

Thanks for clearly stating your viewpoints. I know that intent is oftentimes considered in determining whether an action is ethical (e.g. legal system). But my view is that intent doesn't really matter from the perspective of the international applicant who get rejected without review. Obviously I'd be more upset if I found out UW never looks at the international apps despite accepting the app fees - that would be clearly unethical and probably illegal. But I'd still be pretty upset if I found out that the year I applied they didn't look at them. In either scenario UW isn't looking at my application.

 

I would also be upset, but it would not be unethical to me. My opinion is that ethics is subjective, so I think it's perfectly normal for us to disagree on what constitutes ethical actions. That said, communities (like academia) generally do have a collective sense of what is ethical so the only reason I keep bringing up my subjective view of what is ethical is because I think that academia's collective ethics does align more closely with my view than yours in this case. I bring it up because I think it is important for us "newcomers" to the community understand the "pulse" of the community and what is commonly done. 

 

However, communities are made up of people and the collective "ethics" will change and vary as the people that make up the community change. As academia gets even more internationalized, I do think our collective sense of ethics will shift and evolve. I think that's good and I think it is good that we have debates like this about what is ethical (as long as we refrain from personal insults or other attacks). In my last paragraph, I imply that it is important (especially for newcomers like us) to "fit in" but this does not mean that as we become more integrated in academia, we should not work to shape the community to better fit what we want our community to look like. After all, some of the graduate students of today will (hopefully) be the professors, department chairs, and Deans of tomorrow!

 

A lot of things in academia are based in "tradition" (a.k.a. "that's the way it's always been done!") and ironically, even though some of us work on cutting edge technological research, the processes we use for admission might be embarrassingly outdated (one of my schools required handwritten snail mailed letters? wtf!). I think this is partly because by the time you get to a tenured or full professor position and are able to make policies for your department, your grad school experience was probably 15 ish years ago, and things were much different back then (much fewer technology to connect us across the globe). So, I predict that we will see slow changes that will actually lead to more fair and open admission procedures in the future. I hope that the way we admit and train people can be as international as the way we collaborate and do research!

 

For example, I think schools should actually drop the in-person interview process completely and interview all of their candidates via the same medium. I know that some Canadian schools are now doing this, choosing to do all interviews via Skype, even for applicants that work in the same city! I believe this is a much more fair way to conduct interviews, so that people who are unable to make the in-person visit (either because of money or time or other needs) are not disadvantaged. I think this makes it more fair for "non-traditional" American students as well, who might not be able to take time off work to interview, or students who might not be able to find childcare for their dependents to travel to a bunch of interviews. I hope schools like U. Wisconsin will get on board with this change and stop requiring in-person interviews soon (their website currently says that they will do in-person interviews for people in US borders but only telephone interviews for applicants abroad). But again, I would count this as "preferred practice" or "best practice", not "minimum practice required to be ethical". 

[ilovelab]

I can't believe people are still arguing over this topic

[Vene]

I really wish more schools would do this. The only school I've found that does is Duke. 

 

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/program-statistics

I found such at Minnesota which was actually really nice to know when applying. I really wish more universities did this and that it was simple to find.