Best Rejection Reactions - 2015

[MathCat]

I saw one of these that actually said "those of you admitted but not planning to attend -- please stop collecting admissions and not declining for the sake of stroking your own egos."

If you've completely 100% decided not to attend, it's definitely nice to decline it. But I'm keeping my options open because I'm not yet entirely sure - I have an idea, but I don't want to decline early and then change my mind! One program asked for tentative decisions if we had them, even if it was not yet final - in that case, I did tell them I'm not likely to accept but have not yet decided. I guess they probably make a waitlist offer based on that? Or perhaps they tell people there's a good chance they'll get an offer, I don't know.

[brown_eyed_girl]

I like "Rutgers? I barely know her!" 

[DTY]

Brandeis History, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 12 Mar 2015 A 12 Mar 2015

• report spam
• While waiting for Brandeis to finally crawl out of their hidey hole, take a long swig of coffee and work their way into a decision, I accepted an offer with much higher funding! So no hard feelings.

 

This made me laugh!

[ERR_Alpha]

Stony Brook University Chemistry, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 13 Mar 2015 I 13 Mar 2015

• report spam
• Undergrad GPA:3.0 (GPA-Chemistry Courses: 3.10); Grad-GPA: 3.6; Average GRE; Strong Recommendations; 7 Years Research Experience; 8 Years Teaching Experience; Publications: 2 Books, 16 Journal Papers (my h-index is 5), 5 National Conferences (4 Posters, 1 Workshop); Outstanding Researcher (2 times); Distinguished Lecturer; Outstanding Chemistry Student; Two Hot Papers (Elsevier); Reviewer for Three Journals (11 papers). //////////// The Admissions Committee has reviewed all of the applications submitted for the doctoral (Ph.D.) program in Chemistry at Stony Brook University. After careful review and consideration of your application, we have determined that it will not be possible to offer you admission for the Fall 2015 term. There were many strong candidates for admission this year, which made decisions difficult and time-consuming for the Committee. Your application was very well presented, and our inability to offer admission reflects the intense competition for a limited number of openings. You are to be commended for your achievements so far. We encourage you to continue your studies and are confident you will find another graduate program to match your interests and excellent qualifications. We thank you for your interest in the Chemistry Ph.D. Program and extend our best wishes to you for your future success.

Talk about a laundry list of achievements...

[Crucial BBQ]

My favorite was an acceptance I saw on SAIS from last year:

 

 

My ex GF attended Hopkins for an MS, to the tune of ~$80K/year (second year was discounted 75%).  I am pretty sure the joke is not on Hopkins...

 

Stony Brook University Chemistry, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 13 Mar 2015 I 13 Mar 2015

• report spam
• Undergrad GPA:3.0 (GPA-Chemistry Courses: 3.10); Grad-GPA: 3.6; Average GRE; Strong Recommendations; 7 Years Research Experience; 8 Years Teaching Experience; Publications: 2 Books, 16 Journal Papers (my h-index is 5), 5 National Conferences (4 Posters, 1 Workshop); Outstanding Researcher (2 times); Distinguished Lecturer; Outstanding Chemistry Student; Two Hot Papers (Elsevier); Reviewer for Three Journals (11 papers). //////////// The Admissions Committee has reviewed all of the applications submitted for the doctoral (Ph.D.) program in Chemistry at Stony Brook University. After careful review and consideration of your application, we have determined that it will not be possible to offer you admission for the Fall 2015 term. There were many strong candidates for admission this year, which made decisions difficult and time-consuming for the Committee. Your application was very well presented, and our inability to offer admission reflects the intense competition for a limited number of openings. You are to be commended for your achievements so far. We encourage you to continue your studies and are confident you will find another graduate program to match your interests and excellent qualifications. We thank you for your interest in the Chemistry Ph.D. Program and extend our best wishes to you for your future success.

Talk about a laundry list of achievements...

 

I was once told a story from a Navy recruiter:

 

A fire dept. has an opening, to which two men apply.  One is an experienced house painter who knows how to handle a ladder like a pro.  With his 20 years of experience using a ladder he assumes he has the job, no problem.  The other guy has never touched a ladder in his life.  When the fire dept. made their announcement, the job went to the guy with zero experience.  The reasoning:  his lack of experience meant he was totally trainable, that he could be trained to handle a ladder the way that the fire dept. wants him to.  The pro will be harder to train because he is stuck in his ways.  

 

I always think of this story when I read comments by well-qualified applicants who are dumbfounded over rejections.  A Ph.D. program is a training ground and it sounds like the example above has accomplished all that the program would have taught him and more.  What does a Ph.D. program have to offer him besides the degree and what would the program gain by having him?  Like the painter of 20 years, he's likely to come into the program with the attitude of been there, done that, now get out of my and let me work.  I know what I am doing.  

 

I could be wrong...just the things that entertain my mind...

[dr. t]

Or someone's just full of shit. Occam's Razor 

[TXInstrument11]

My ex GF attended Hopkins for an MS, to the tune of ~$80K/year (second year was discounted 75%).  I am pretty sure the joke is not on Hopkins...

 

I was once told a story from a Navy recruiter:

 

A fire dept. has an opening, to which two men apply.  One is an experienced house painter who knows how to handle a ladder like a pro.  With his 20 years of experience using a ladder he assumes he has the job, no problem.  The other guy has never touched a ladder in his life.  When the fire dept. made their announcement, the job went to the guy with zero experience.  The reasoning:  his lack of experience meant he was totally trainable, that he could be trained to handle a ladder the way that the fire dept. wants him to.  The pro will be harder to train because he is stuck in his ways.  

 

I always think of this story when I read comments by well-qualified applicants who are dumbfounded over rejections.  A Ph.D. program is a training ground and it sounds like the example above has accomplished all that the program would have taught him and more.  What does a Ph.D. program have to offer him besides the degree and what would the program gain by having him?  Like the painter of 20 years, he's likely to come into the program with the attitude of been there, done that, now get out of my and let me work.  I know what I am doing.  

 

I could be wrong...just the things that entertain my mind...

I have heard of this explanation before and it may be true for some adcomms, but the reasoning still strikes me as pretty backwards.

 

Even with a master's degree and a few pubs, that's only 1-2 years out of undergrad. That simply doesn't strike me as long enough to set someone in their ways. Plus, most academics continually adapt their focus and techniques (sometimes wildly) over the length of their career. If that isn't set in stone, PhD and loads of pubs in hand, then why would a kid fresh out of school with a few pubs be seen as inflexible?

 

Also - I haven't seen the other side of this yet - but I imagine that I would prefer the most knowledgeable and demonstrably capable student possible over a less qualified one I could better "mould". At least in my UG lab, grad students are given enormous freedom in how they design and oversee experiments - and I'm not talking about crap side projects, but ones under big buck $$$ grants. Especially in a large lab, grads need to be self starters as much as sis possible for a student. 

 

It's also just good science to expose yourself to people with opposing viewpoints. I would want to know why a student reading the same research literature as me disagrees on x,y,z topics. It may mean I'm missing something or need to revise my conclusions. And if my procedures are stupid or inefficient, I would want that to be pointed out too.

 

Copy/pasting my ideas and techniques onto a student strikes me as boring and of little merit. I feel like the benefits of having a variety of ideas from different training and backgrounds outweighs the cost. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[Dedi]

I think a way to modify the story/parable is that the person that is experienced was so sure that he had the job that he made sloppy mistakes on the application. was arrogant during the interview and (in the case of grad school) didn't have a research fit.

 

Research experience is important, but there is still much more to it. The more inexperienced person has to prove to the committee that they are capable, and they can do it by other means. Grad school applications do allow inexperienced people to get in and experienced people out (Though the opposite usually happens).

[isilya]

I have heard of this explanation before and it may be true for some adcomms, but the reasoning still strikes me as pretty backwards.

 

Even with a master's degree and a few pubs, that's only 1-2 years out of undergrad. That simply doesn't strike me as long enough to set someone in their ways. Plus, most academics continually adapt their focus and techniques (sometimes wildly) over the length of their career. If that isn't set in stone, PhD and loads of pubs in hand, then why would a kid fresh out of school with a few pubs be seen as inflexible?

 

Also - I haven't seen the other side of this yet - but I imagine that I would prefer the most knowledgeable and demonstrably capable student possible over a less qualified one I could better "mould". At least in my UG lab, grad students are given enormous freedom in how they design and oversee experiments - and I'm not talking about crap side projects, but ones under big buck $$$ grants. Especially in a large lab, grads need to be self starters as much as sis possible for a student. 

 

It's also just good science to expose yourself to people with opposing viewpoints. I would want to know why a student reading the same research literature as me disagrees on x,y,z topics. It may mean I'm missing something or need to revise my conclusions. And if my procedures are stupid or inefficient, I would want that to be pointed out too.

 

Copy/pasting my ideas and techniques onto a student strikes me as boring and of little merit. I feel like the benefits of having a variety of ideas from different training and backgrounds outweighs the cost. 

This!! One of my POIs gave me this great advice: you don't want somebody to look at the title of your dissertation and be able to guess every single member of your committee. You want to be an independent scholar who has their own unique ideas that aren't just followups of your advisor's work.

[EdNeuroGrl]

This one came from a couple years ago for me (took some time off to work, now doing my master's). 

 

I applied in October 2012 for Fall 2013 admissions at the UNM Psychology department. I literally heard nothing from them at all... then in October of 2013 I finally got the rejection letter... I had already moved on and then there was that sitting in the mail. I looked at it like WTF, then as I read it I was like "no sh*t, really?!?!"   

 

I think my neighbors though I had lost it at that moment, yelling at my mail. 

[babybird]

UCL Economics, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 16 Mar 2015 I 16 Mar 2015

Whatever, lek. Not worth wasting my time with this after so many acceptances from top schools. It's their loss.

 

---

 

Probably the kind of recruit who bragged about all those interviews with top universities while they were visiting their safety schools... "I'm interviewing with Harvard and Stanford, but I had already accepted this interview so I figured I'd better come anyway..." 

[1Q84]

I have heard of this explanation before and it may be true for some adcomms, but the reasoning still strikes me as pretty backwards.

 

Even with a master's degree and a few pubs, that's only 1-2 years out of undergrad. That simply doesn't strike me as long enough to set someone in their ways. Plus, most academics continually adapt their focus and techniques (sometimes wildly) over the length of their career. If that isn't set in stone, PhD and loads of pubs in hand, then why would a kid fresh out of school with a few pubs be seen as inflexible?

 

Also - I haven't seen the other side of this yet - but I imagine that I would prefer the most knowledgeable and demonstrably capable student possible over a less qualified one I could better "mould". At least in my UG lab, grad students are given enormous freedom in how they design and oversee experiments - and I'm not talking about crap side projects, but ones under big buck $$$ grants. Especially in a large lab, grads need to be self starters as much as sis possible for a student. 

 

It's also just good science to expose yourself to people with opposing viewpoints. I would want to know why a student reading the same research literature as me disagrees on x,y,z topics. It may mean I'm missing something or need to revise my conclusions. And if my procedures are stupid or inefficient, I would want that to be pointed out too.

 

Copy/pasting my ideas and techniques onto a student strikes me as boring and of little merit. I feel like the benefits of having a variety of ideas from different training and backgrounds outweighs the cost. 

 

I don't think it's so much the list of achievements or the time-out-of-undergrad that determines someone who is inflexible. If you look at the actual rejection response with the arrogant listing, one can only imagine what the SOP looked like. Clearly, this person is brilliant but quite tone deaf. 

 

It doesn't take much to irritate some faculty members, especially when it comes to overweening arrogance. Let's remember that this applicant doesn't even have a doctorate yet and supposedly has accomplished far more than some of the junior, TT-faculty. 

[TXInstrument11]

I don't think it's so much the list of achievements or the time-out-of-undergrad that determines someone who is inflexible. If you look at the actual rejection response with the arrogant listing, one can only imagine what the SOP looked like. Clearly, this person is brilliant but quite tone deaf. 

 

It doesn't take much to irritate some faculty members, especially when it comes to overweening arrogance. Let's remember that this applicant doesn't even have a doctorate yet and supposedly has accomplished far more than some of the junior, TT-faculty. 

If someone comes off as arrogant, that's one thing. Turning away "overqualified" applicants is another. I was talking more about the latter.

 

The practice appears to be highly illogical and strikes me as insecure. 

[TheMercySeat]

Let's remember that this applicant doesn't even have a doctorate yet and supposedly has accomplished far more than some of the junior, TT-faculty.

Some of my coworkers might as well have honorary doctorates though- seriously! I'm referring to well-published, full-time research associates with decades of experience who are ABDs or have a master's degree. One is a woman who went to Harvard in the 1960s (ABDS), and surely we all can speculate why a woman might have had a hard time pssing a dissertation at an Ivy in the 1960s. Edited March 16, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[silenus_thescribe]

I like "Rutgers? I barely know her!" 

 

*sheepishly raises hand*

[dr. t]

Some of my coworkers might as well have honorary doctorates though- seriously! I'm referring to well-published, full-time research associates with decades of experience who are ABDs or have a master's degree. One is a woman who went to Harvard in the 1960s (ABDS), and surely we all can speculate why a woman might have had a hard time pssing a dissertation at an Ivy in the 1960s.

 

To be fair, in the 1960s a PhD was not nearly as necessary as it is now.

[Kinetic Isotope Defect]

Everyone who got rejected from UCSD Chemistry today is really bad at pretending they're not upset.

 

UC San Diego Chemistry & Biochemistry, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 17 Mar 2015   17 Mar 2015

• I admitted to Duke, but no love from UCSD? lol

UC San Diego Chemistry, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 17 Mar 2015 ♦ I 17 Mar 2015

• Have already gotten under a big shot. Low sub gre. Applied because my relatives live there.

University Of California San Diego(UCSD) Chemistry, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 17 Mar 2015 ♦ I 17 Mar 2015

• One 2nd author paper in JPCB. double major with Chem Eng. Got better offers. I don't even know why I applied here!!(maybe only because of the weather!!!)

 

 

[jujubea]

My favorites from here!:

 

"Quite surprised. First class master. Was in touch with the processor who seem to be interested in my proposal."

 

I don't know, but it might be worrying if a computer science student can't tell the difference between a processor and a professor.

 

That, plus "First class master" Bahahahaha. 

 

 

This one is for University of Kansas, Audiology:  

• "Got accepted via email! Very excited, one of my top two choices! No news about funding yet, hoping to hear with the written letter to follow!"

 

 

*edit to add:  it does not take much to amuse me.  

Yessss

 

 

Iowa, Creative Writing, Fiction, MFA

"whatever. now i can spend more time on my cat dialogue skills."

Yessss

Edited March 17, 2015 by jujubea

[ERR_Alpha]

Penn State Philosophy, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 12 Mar 2015 ♦ A 12 Mar 2015

report spam

0a/0w/8r (of 10). I got 99 problems, but deciding which program to attend ain't one.

Always look on the bright side right?

[1Q84]

Good god yes
 

Springfield University

Nuclear Technician, PhD (F15)

17 Mar 2015
 

• Uhh, excuse me, Professor Brainiac, but I worked in a nuclear power plant for ten years and I think I know how a proton accelerator works

 

[yellowmint]

I love this one:

University Of Nebraska-Lincoln Social Psychology, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 17 Mar 2015 A 17 Mar 2015

It's all good, I've always kind of wanted to work at Walmart and become a raging alcoholic anyway.

[TheMercySeat]

To be fair, in the 1960s a PhD was not nearly as necessary as it is now.

 

Also valid, but that speaks to the idea that she must have been very sure that she wanted it at the time. She probably started enrollment prior to second-wave feminism, and it probably was not consistently well-received by people in her life at the time.

 

Hell, it's 2015 and neither my grandparents nor parents understand why I don't want to live at home until I get married. 

[Stonybrook4tw!]

This one's a real thinker:

 

 

BU, Economics PhD; Rejected:

"I bought a watch last year."

 

 

How... cryptic. I'm not sure exactly how that relates, but deep down I know it does.

[SublimePZ]

DukeEconomics, PhD (F15)Rejected via E-mail on 19 Mar 2015A
Ahhh that feeling of getting that last rejection, and you're just like "YESSSSS! Yeah yeah yeah! It's finally over!" And that is when you know that you have a deep sickness

 

I giggled. I guess we all have this deep obsession huh?

[ZebraFinch]

"To all the fellow-rejected, please join the official FB group of the Cuddling Society for people rejected from PhD programs: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cuddlingsociety/"