B's in grad school? Chances at PhD program?

[Hopephily]

From what I've gathered, many (if not most) programs go through rounds of narrowing down the pool of applicants. So one might think that a transcript with a couple of B's won't matter much at this stage in the game, provided that one has an otherwise strong application. However, once the list has been narrowed down to something more manageable (i.e., the "finalists" if you will), the ad comms are likely to be left with a set of exceptional applicants which still greatly outnumbers the offers they can make. I've heard at least one person on an ad comm refer to the process at this stage as being arbitrary, but I'm having a hard time imaging ad comms casting lots... So it is quite possible that things that didn't make much difference during initial cuts could make a real difference with respect to these final decisions (including, but not limited to, a slightly lower, GPA). Of course, there are many successful applicants that don't have perfect GPA's, but they probably had other extraordinary elements to offset this. 

[Hopephily]

Hi,

I'm an applicant for this season with more than a few B+s on my grad transcript. My GPA was 3.67, but I only received one actual A-... yeah. I'm pretty certain this will hurt my chances, although I've stopped worrying about it. I'll post on this thread to let you know how things go. So far, wait listed by Duke.

 

But I bet you killed logic. 

[ianfaircloud]

From what I've gathered, many (if not most) programs go through rounds of narrowing down the pool of applicants. So one might think that a transcript with a couple of B's won't matter much at this stage in the game, provided that one has an otherwise strong application. However, once the list has been narrowed down to something more manageable (i.e., the "finalists" if you will), the ad comms are likely to be left with a set of exceptional applicants which still greatly outnumbers the offers they can make. I've heard at least one person on an ad comm refer to the process at this stage as being arbitrary, but I'm having a hard time imaging ad comms casting lots... So it is quite possible that things that didn't make much difference during initial cuts could make a real difference with respect to these final decisions (including, but not limited to, a slightly lower, GPA). Of course, there are many successful applicants that don't have perfect GPA's, but they probably had other extraordinary elements to offset this. 

 

Many programs do go through rounds, but many other programs do not. Some programs ask evaluators more or less to rank the applications in their piles. Others ask evaluators to assign a numerical value to an application (like on a scale of 1 to 10, how strong was this application?). In other words, some methods do not involve going through rounds at all. But yeah, some do. And for those that do, perhaps some of those rounds allow people with lower numbers to "pass" to the next round.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no telling how your GPA will affect you. We know that some people with less than awesome GPAs have done well in philosophy admissions. We also know that the people who have done well generally have had amazing grades. Even that doesn't tell us too much, for it happens that people with amazing grades are more likely to have strong applications otherwise.

 

But I take it that your point is simple: For some departments, there's a stage at which your not-amazing grades may not hurt you. I think that's true. As I've commented elsewhere, these are just random sets of philosophers with their own standards of evaluation. Some philosophers care about grades, and some do not.

 

I will say that I find it very hard to believe that numbers play a significant role at any department very late in the process. Here's the simple reason: These people are quite busy and simply don't want to read very many papers. Once they've read a paper and liked it (a lot!), my belief is that most philosophers aren't going to care too much about numbers at that point.

 

Edit. Okay, I gave your comment a closer read. I take it that you're saying that numbers could make a real difference when the time comes to decide between two amazing applicants. I think that's right, but I think it's FAR more common that a philosopher will disregard numbers at this stage and simply make it about the quality of the papers and the letters of recommendation. Philosophers are pretty smart people, and they're likely to realize that GPAs and GREs simply aren't super predictive of success in philosophy. I'm just having an amazingly hard time imagining a brilliant philosopher weighing grades when s/he's just finished reading two writing samples and six letters of recommendation, particularly at the latest stage in the process, when this person is deciding among only a few applicants. If so, then we have cause to be even more cynical about philosophy admissions.

 

Edit 2. One more thing. Usually GPAs and GREs matter far more at the earliest stage, if they matter at all, because they are the easiest way to distinguish among applicants. It stands to reason that these elements of applications are more useful in narrowing the pool. How else would this initial narrowing happen? Certainly not by reading letters and papers! Perhaps by tossing aside applications from people who attended lesser-known schools or didn't major in philosophy.

Edited February 6, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Infinite Zest]

Anecdote: I had a B, B+, and 5 A-s in philosophy and got into grad school.

 

Be hopeful!

[Establishment]

But I bet you killed logic. 

 

Is this a Star Trek Voyager reference? Because if so, I have an upvote locked and loaded just for you.

[Hopephily]

Is this a Star Trek Voyager reference? Because if so, I have an upvote locked and loaded just for you.

Guilty as charged.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Hopephily

[Hopephily]

Edit. Okay, I gave your comment a closer read. I take it that you're saying that numbers could make a real difference when the time comes to decide between two amazing applicants. I think that's right, but I think it's FAR more common that a philosopher will disregard numbers at this stage and simply make it about the quality of the papers and the letters of recommendation. Philosophers are pretty smart people, and they're likely to realize that GPAs and GREs simply aren't super predictive of success in philosophy. I'm just having an amazingly hard time imagining a brilliant philosopher weighing grades when s/he's just finished reading two writing samples and six letters of recommendation, particularly at the latest stage in the process, when this person is deciding among only a few applicants. If so, then we have cause to be even more cynical about philosophy admissions.

Edit 2. One more thing. Usually GPAs and GREs matter far more at the earliest stage, if they matter at all, because they are the easiest way to distinguish among applicants. It stands to reason that these elements of applications are more useful in narrowing the pool. How else would this initial narrowing happen? Certainly not by reading letters and papers! Perhaps by tossing aside applications from people who attended lesser-known schools or didn't major in philosophy.

As I said in my original post, I have heard that, choosing among the final round can sometimes come down to arbitrary matters-- and I took that to mean that even otherwise unreliable measures were used to determine the final list. So nothing I've said calls into question the usefulness of quantitative measures like GPA for initial cuts nor does it suggest that smart philosophers are putting a lot of weight on GPA per se.

[ianfaircloud]

As I said in my original post, I have heard that, choosing among the final round can sometimes come down to arbitrary matters-- and I took that to mean that even otherwise unreliable measures were used to determine the final list. So nothing I've said calls into question the usefulness of quantitative measures like GPA for initial cuts nor does it suggest that smart philosophers are putting a lot of weight on GPA per se.

 

Oh, I didn't take you to mean that. I took you to be saying that perhaps at an early stage, a couple of Bs on a transcript won't matter much, but perhaps at the final stage, a member of an admission committee may use those Bs to eliminate an otherwise exceptional applicant. I think you're absolutely right that this could be how things play out. (Most of us have heard stories about how impossible it is for members of admissions committees to make decisions at the final stages, because there are so many great applicants. No doubt some members of these committees resort to unreliable measures.) My point, the spirit of which is consistent with yours, is that it's more common that a couple of Bs would eliminate an applicant at an early stage than at a final stage. So, just as a purely practical matter, applicants with weaker grades have a tougher time getting their letters and writing samples to be read in the first place.

 

GRE and GPA allow admission committees to set aside many applications before going to the trouble to read the letters of recommendation and writing samples.

 

I think many departments roughly follow a procedure similar to that of University of Chicago (though University of Chicago has an unusual policy of not wait-listing anyone). Applications must survive "cuts" at each "stage" of the process, and eventually this process produces a pool of applicants that is offered admission. At the first stage in the process, in order to reduce the burden of reviewing applications, many applications are set aside after a quick glance. This quick glance (just because it is quick) is not long enough to read letters of recommendation or samples, but it is long enough to read numbers. And unfortunately, if the effect on the reader is that the application is far too weak to receive serious consideration, the application is set aside. I take this to be exactly what University of Chicago does in its four-stage review process. On its site, the department writes that there is a "first-cut in which the initial applicant pool (of about 250 or so complete dossiers) is narrowed down to about forty or so," followed by "a careful review of the writing samples of the candidates whose dossiers survived the first cut." The department probably doesn't direct its committee to eliminate applicants who scored below X on the GRE or have less than Y grade point average. But it probably does direct its committee to make cuts on the basis of this quick-glance review, which by its nature is a kind of cutting off by the numbers.

 

Some departments don't follow the "stages" approach. Some have one cut followed by a one-stage review of the remaining applications. One person does an initial cut of applications that, on quick glance, look especially weak and not worth further consideration. ("On quick glance," i.e. not long enough to read letters or papers.) The remaining applications are distributed among the members of the admission committee. No fewer than three members of the committee will read each application, and each member assigns each application a numerical score. Very roughly, and only after some adjustments, these scores are averaged. The applicants whose applications received the highest scores then receive offers of admission.

 

All this talk about cut-offs may be disheartening to people with imperfect numbers. But I think it's actually good news for people with less than amazing numbers. Here's why. Once an application has been deemed "good enough" (on account of numbers) for further consideration, the numbers are deemed good enough and therefore less relevant. I think the difference between a 162 and a 169 on the verbal is significant statistically but insignificant in terms of its effect in philosophy admissions. The committee members sort of "move on" to consider the features of the application that require the most scrutiny (and the most of their valuable time), the features that are most revealing of philosophical potential. Those features are the letters of recommendation and the writing sample. Once a committee member goes to the lengths of reading an applicant's writing sample, that member has set aside (perhaps literally) the data from the online application, e.g. the applicant's name, her biographical details, her scores, etc. I think this is bad news for those people who devoted too much time studying the GRE. I worked pretty hard to earn the 169 on the verbal and the 6.0 on the writing. It's just not worth it! My rule on the GRE is this: Get good numbers, but don't go to lengths to get great numbers. If your GRE score starts with a 16 (or 17!), you're fine. A 160/160/5.0 is completely fine and is a reasonable goal for most people. I don't want to overstate this, but I think most philosophers don't give a shit about the difference between 160 and 169 on the GRE. The GPA matters a bit more but not probably a lot more.

[Ella Simmons]

It's certainly not ideal, but I don't think it will kill your chances. It will help if you have really great GRE scores - often, a deficit in either GRE or GPA can be offset by outstanding marks in the other. And since the writing sample and letters of recommendation are the truly crucial parts of an application, you should should make those absolutely as good as possible. It might help if your letter writers address the difficulty of the courses you got B's in, though I would refrain from doing so in your personal statement. That said, admissions committees do look for success in graduate-level coursework as an indicator of how well you'll do in their programs.

 

Overall, yes, it will likely hurt your chances, but no, you're not already doomed.

 

Couldn't agree more.  You'll never know if you don't give it a shot!

[flybottle]

 

I think many departments roughly follow a procedure similar to that of University of Chicago (though University of Chicago has an unusual policy of not wait-listing anyone). Applications must survive "cuts" at each "stage" of the process, and eventually this process produces a pool of applicants that is offered admission. At the first stage in the process, in order to reduce the burden of reviewing applications, many applications are set aside after a quick glance. This quick glance (just because it is quick) is not long enough to read letters of recommendation or samples, but it is long enough to read numbers. And unfortunately, if the effect on the reader is that the application is far too weak to receive serious consideration, the application is set aside. I take this to be exactly what University of Chicago does in its four-stage review process. On its site, the department writes that there is a "first-cut in which the initial applicant pool (of about 250 or so complete dossiers) is narrowed down to about forty or so," followed by "a careful review of the writing samples of the candidates whose dossiers survived the first cut." The department probably doesn't direct its committee to eliminate applicants who scored below X on the GRE or have less than Y grade point average. But it probably does direct its committee to make cuts on the basis of this quick-glance review, which by its nature is a kind of cutting off by the numbers.

 

 

 

 

Having spoken with several UChicago professors about their admissions process over the years, I think it would be overstating things to say that they don't look at letters and writing samples in the first cut. They certainly don't read every page of every writing sample, much less read them especially closely. But it is not unusual for a member of the adcom to quickly read the first and last few pages of each sample, and make a judgment in part based on their impressions. 

 

While there are surely implicit bias issues about whose samples get read more seriously in the first cut (ie, if we submitted the same writing sample with two different sets of numbers, the one with the better set of numbers would probably get read more closely/charitably/whatever), I think it's rare for the first stage to rely solely upon GRE and GPA. (At least in terms of what adcom members are supposed/intend to do-- that doesn't say anything about compliance when someone is crunched for time.)

[tuv0k]

But I bet you killed logic. 

 

Hehehe, nice one. Unfortunately, I got a B+ for the only logic course I ever took. Now I feel like I have to change my handle...