By The Skin Of Your Teeth

[MattCanFly]

This one is a callout to all who have been accepted to a graduate program in previous cycles. How many of you just barely made it, applied with no real hope of getting in, or had just average/below average qualifications? What was your story? What do you think pulled your application through? Just how "bad" or average was your application? How awesome did it feel to make it? Going through these boards and only reading about success stories from those who obviously were super qualified can get a bit discouraging. Hopefully this conversation can bring some perspective and peace of mind for the rest of us who are going stir crazy around here.

 

[Guest]

*Will return to this thread next month if I get in anywhere*.

 

I'm on my way towards finishing undergrad and applied for Fall 2015.Mediocre GREs; High GPA (despite changing my major 3+ times); minority; Honor society awards;  some research projects, knowledge of 2 critical languages; no 'significant' job experience. I also ensured I did well on my SOPs. That's where I stand at. I don't know what to expect and just applied all over the place.

 

I also try to  remind myself that this board does not represent all accepted applicants. Believe it or not, I'm sure that there are some people out there who had mediocre qualifications on some specific part of their application. But, they might just prefer to keep any form of their 'low stats' on the private end.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Guest

[MJA87]

I don't think anyone "sneaks" into these programs or just gets in "by the skin of their teeth", and I certainly don't think applicants should view admission offers that way. Starting a rigorous program feeling like you are in some way less qualified or deserving than other students is not a recipe for success.

 

I see it as binary: you're either accepted or not. No shades of gray. If you're offered admission to a graduate program, it's because they want you there and you deserve to be there. It doesn't do you any good to say "I suck, I can't believe program X would want me!". It's more beneficial to be thankful for your offer, to be forward-thinking, and to start your program in the right mindset.

[WinterSolstice]

I have to say, I love MJA87's attitude towards the admissions process. My thoughts are somewhat similar in that if a school accepts you, then you are qualified to attend. No point in getting down on yourself.

 

That being said, I did not expect to get into all of the programs that I did. I was especially surprised at my acceptance from SAIS (though, that being said, not incredibly surprised that I wasn't offered aid). I don't think I am a weak student by any means, but I'm also aware of the high caliber of students applying to these programs, so I wasn't expecting to stand out, necessarily. To answer your questions, I had a 3.65 GPA, scored decent on my GRE (95th percentile for the reading/writing portions, but only 50th percentile on the math). I probably should've re-taken the GRE, but I didn't bother, and figured I'd apply anyway. I spent a lot of time on the essays, and I thankfully had the support of some wonderful people writing my recommendations. As for how it felt getting accepted... It felt amazing, of course. When my acceptances came in, I felt almost shell-shocked, but in an immensely positive way. It felt very validating to know that an admissions committee had looked at the entire package of what I had to offer, and found it promising. 

 

All that being said, these are professional programs. They're not looking to do you any favors, so the whole not-believing-a-program-would-want-you thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're in, you're in. I don't think there's such a thing as "just barely" being accepted. Don't minimize your successes! If you get in, it's not by the charity of the admissions committee. It's because you got there all on your own!

Edited February 13, 2015 by WinterSolstice

[ZebraFinch]

This is my first time applying for grad school, but I have a close friend who got into SAIS, Georgetown, and GWU (with some funding from all) with no work experience whatsoever (straight out of undergrad, she had internships and volunteering experience only), a very bad quant GRE, and no quant/econ coursework whatsoever. She ended up deferring to work for a few years, but she got in. I think people online either inflate their states, hide their "red flags", or mostly lurk and not post.

Edited February 13, 2015 by ZebraFinch

[Poli92]

I don't think anyone "sneaks" into these programs or just gets in "by the skin of their teeth", and I certainly don't think applicants should view admission offers that way. Starting a rigorous program feeling like you are in some way less qualified or deserving than other students is not a recipe for success.

 

I see it as binary: you're either accepted or not. No shades of gray. If you're offered admission to a graduate program, it's because they want you there and you deserve to be there. It doesn't do you any good to say "I suck, I can't believe program X would want me!". It's more beneficial to be thankful for your offer, to be forward-thinking, and to start your program in the right mindset.

 

I have to say, I love MJA87's attitude towards the admissions process. My thoughts are somewhat similar in that if a school accepts you, then you are qualified to attend. No point in getting down on yourself.

 

All that being said, these are professional programs. They're not looking to do you any favors, so the whole not-believing-a-program-would-want-you thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're in, you're in. I don't think there's such a thing as "just barely" being accepted. Don't minimize your successes! If you get in, it's not by the charity of the admissions committee. It's because you got there all on your own!

 

I feel like these both assume that the application process is waaayyy more accurate than it actually is. There is a lot of subjectivity applied to very imperfect information about complicated applicants, which means that there will definitely be people who get in that shouldn't have and people that should've gotten in and didn't. This is why people leave, transfer, etc. 

 

Coming in feeling less qualified or deserving than other applicants is extremely common and often the offshoot of humility, which I would hardly say is a bad trait to start school with. Also, there is a huge difference between being a total mope b/c you feel un(der)qualified and feeling surprised/lucky to get into a reach school. 

[WinterSolstice]

I feel like these both assume that the application process is waaayyy more accurate than it actually is. There is a lot of subjectivity applied to very imperfect information about complicated applicants, which means that there will definitely be people who get in that shouldn't have and people that should've gotten in and didn't. This is why people leave, transfer, etc. 

 

Coming in feeling less qualified or deserving than other applicants is extremely common and often the offshoot of humility, which I would hardly say is a bad trait to start school with. Also, there is a huge difference between being a total mope b/c you feel un(der)qualified and feeling surprised/lucky to get into a reach school. 

 

 

I'm not denying the fact that the process is imperfect, but the whole point of the admissions process, from the perspective of these schools, is to have a successful incoming class that will have a high retention rate. So while it's subjective, it's not like the admissions committee lets people in on a whim. People are accepted because there is something in the application that the adcom feels is promising. So no, it's not perfect, but if you're accepted, then obviously you are qualified in some respect. So I don't think anyone should get down on themselves for applying to a school they feel is a reach, or "just barely" getting in.

[Poli92]

This is my first time applying for grad school, but I have a close friend who got into SAIS, Georgetown, and GWU (with some funding from all) with no work experience whatsoever (straight out of undergrad, she had internships and volunteering experience only), a very bad quant GRE, and no quant/econ coursework whatsoever. She ended up deferring to work for a few years, but she got in. I think people online either inflate their states, hide their "red flags", or mostly lurk and not post.

 

This. 

 

I have often wondered how much of an upward bias there is in GradCafe postings. Not saying that anyone is intentionally misrepresenting themselves (though it is possible), but I have to question how representative our sample really is when you consider that, by and large, the people who are going to be posting on here are the ones who actually did at least a little digging and found the forum, which may suggest a degree of preparedness for/interest in graduate study beyond that of the 1-200 students per school who applied on a whim and/or with little preparation.    

 

ETA: I got curious and checked on reported Yale and JHU Global/International Affairs admits for the past few years. The GradCafe median GPA, GRE Verbal, and GRE Quant for Yale were 3.83, 167, and 163.5 versus Yale's official medians for the last 3 years of 3.7, 162, and 157.  For JHU the story was pretty similar with 3.685, 164, and 162 versus official IQRs of 3.47 - 3.77, 158-165, and 154-162. Clearly we're only getting the upper crust in those cases.  

Edited February 13, 2015 by Poli92

[WhatAmIDoingNow]

This. 

 

I have often wondered how much of an upward bias there is in GradCafe postings. Not saying that anyone is intentionally misrepresenting themselves (though it is possible), but I have to question how representative our sample really is when you consider that, by and large, the people who are going to be posting on here are the ones who actually did at least a little digging and found the forum, which may suggest a degree of preparedness for/interest in graduate study beyond that of the 1-200 students per school who applied on a whim and/or with little preparation.    

 

ETA: I got curious and checked on reported Yale and JHU Global/International Affairs admits for the past few years. The GradCafe median GPA, GRE Verbal, and GRE Quant for Yale were 3.83, 167, and 163.5 versus Yale's official medians for the last 3 years of 3.7, 162, and 157.  For JHU the story was pretty similar with 3.685, 164, and 162 versus official IQRs of 3.47 - 3.77, 158-165, and 154-162. Clearly we're only getting the upper crust in those cases.  

 

To add, most of the applicants on this site seem to have applied to 6+ programs.  From the PhD students that I know, most applied to 3 or less.  A couple applied to 4.  The information on this site is skewed to serial applicants. You can only attend one program, so the applicants admitted to multiple schools in the first round will have to give up some of those spots to applicants on the waitlists. 

[Glitter1nTheAir]

I was worried that I wouldn't get accepted into any programs.

 

1) I majored in Integrative Biology with a Music minor

2) I have a below-average GPA (3.2) with an even lower major GPA (2.7)

3) NO letter of recommendation from an academic source

4) BARELY ANY work experience (worked at Starbucks for almost two years after graduating from undergrad while earning a Meeting & Event Planning Certificate at a state school, currently serving in AmeriCorps)

 

I ended up getting accepted into my top choice with enough scholarship money to cover tuition.

 

I give credit to:

1) My extracurricular leadership experiences and awards & recognitions

2) My SOP (what is my inspiration and tied why I wanted to get a MPA to why I wanted to major in Biology in the first place)

3) Strong LORs even if none of them were from an academic source

4) I did well enough on my GRE to make up for my GPA, I guess.

5) I graduated from one of the top and most prestigious public schools in the nation, so I wonder how much they take that into account.

 

 

I do agree that there seems to be an upward bias here though.. I noticed that a lot of the threads were pertaining to the most prestigious MPA/MPP/IR programs.

[Guest]

*Will return to this thread next month if I get in anywhere*.

 

I'm on my way towards finishing undergrad and applied for Fall 2015.Mediocre GREs; High GPA (despite changing my major 3+ times); minority; Honor society awards;  some research projects, knowledge of 2 critical languages; no 'significant' job experience. I also ensured I did well on my SOPs. That's where I stand at. I don't know what to expect and just applied all over the place.

 

I also try to  remind myself that this board does not represent all accepted applicants. Believe it or not, I'm sure that there are some people out there who had mediocre qualifications on some specific part of their application. But, they might just prefer to keep any form of their 'low stats' on the private end.

 

A little over a month later.

 

Looks like people like us 'made it' somewhere, OP.  For myself, I'm taking this opportunity right about now. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by Guest

[rbt259]

Here we go:

 

GRE Q151/V151 AWA 4.0

Undergraduate GPA 2.6/4.0

 

4 years in the service industry in a leadership/supervisory position

2 years in Peace Corps

 

Accepted: Brandeis, DU, SIS

Waitlisted: UCSD

Denied: GSPIA, SAIS, Elliott, GT SSP

 

I knew I wasn't going to get in to a lot of the schools (esp. SAIS & SSP), but I wanted to try for it anyways.  I had really strong recommendation letters from a well-known research professor and Peace Corps country director.

 

I think for me, waiting a while to apply to school and having the experience in between contributed to my acceptances.  Don't know how I managed 3 acceptances, but I'm really honored that the schools are giving me a chance.  I definitely think the schools accept you for something that they think you could offer, and I'm pretty sure my SOP, PC experience, and LORs are what got me into school.

Edited March 27, 2015 by rbt259

[PeterQuince]

Long-time lurker, infrequent poster. This is an interesting thread.

 

I was talking to a good friend of mine last night, considering options for what to do next year. We have very different work experience (he's a lawyer for the government, I work for an education nonprofit), and he reminded me just how subjective my application process was compared to his. For law school, your LSAT and GPA largely (although not entirely) dictate your options before the consideration of funding. Statements of purpose or personal statements matter, as do letters of recommendation, but it remains an equation with two primary variables that have the greatest weight (although tipped differently based on the school). The common denominator is that almost everyone applying to law school intends to become a lawyer (or will become one, even if they don't intend to now). There's only one bar exam for each state (plus a few for certain federal courts), and while some law schools have specialties, the general education is very similar across all institutions, so with acceptances in hand, it's pretty easy to examine cost, aid, size, community, hiring record, and a few other factors to make a good matriculation decision.

 

Conversely, for most of the people who post and read on this forum specifically (for a broad range of policy and government administration programs), the GPA and GRE scores matter, but they are far from the only factors. Because many of these programs are so different from each other in their areas of emphasis, scope, and type of professional and/or academic training, and because so many people's interests are so different from each other (community organizing, municipal administration, economic policy analysis, international diplomacy), it's much more of a complicated matching process for the admissions committees, which is why statements of purpose and letters of recommendation matter so heavily. I've wondered why people often mention (on this board and elsewhere) that they know they have "Strong LORs" or similar, because that seems necessary but not sufficient. Programmatic fit seems to matter a great deal and whether a recommendation is a strong endorsement or not, it has to demonstrate that your academic and professional goals match those of the program, and that you would add to the community. I think it's more difficult to write a thoughtful and customized letter of recommendation for some of these schools than for law school.

 

And then there are things no one can control: the size of the applicant pool, the quality of the applicant pool, the diversity of the applicant pool (across the obvious and many far less obvious measures). It's enticing to think it's cut-and-dry, and perhaps it is when you're accepted, but it isn't necessarily when you aren't, because countless qualified people are denied admission or waitlisted every year because there aren't enough seats in the classes. But you really have no idea if you "got in by the skin of your teeth" unless someone with authority tells you as much (and you might question why they decided to do so if they did).

 

I have friends with amazing experience, grades, and scores who have struggled to be admitted and friends with far less stellar profiles who got in everywhere they applied, and I think it has a lot to do with (a) really knowing what you want to do and why, (b ) applying to schools that will help you achieve those goals, © communicating that effectively through your application, and (d) supporting your recommenders as they communicate it in their letters. I'm sure that's why some of my friends have struggled, but it's also not always enough because of all of the exogenous factors no one can control.

 

Best of luck to everyone with decisions if you have them to make, and if you do, give yourself a pat on the back. You may not know why you were admitted (or denied) somewhere, but don't assume you know for sure unless someone on the admissions team is willing to sit down and review your file with you.

Edited March 27, 2015 by PeterQuince