When I am on an admissions committee, I will....

[rising_star]

bsharpe, you act as though the world is equal when it is not. I personally would want an admissions committee to consider that, while I may not have been a RA in 2-3 labs, I did take advantage of the limited research opportunities available to me at my institution. Thus, as a result, my CV may not be the equivalent of someone else's but that also isn't entirely my fault. I can't force my institutions to offer more research opportunities to undergraduates. I can't make someone give a student money for an otherwise unpaid RA or internship. But, those things result in people having different CVs for reasons that can be entirely unrelated to their skills or abilities. If you (and others on this thread) want to live in a world where you believe that everyone has equal opportunities and race, ethnicity, and gender don't matter, then that's fine. But, as I clearly said above, I don't want to live in that world because it has/perpetuates/creates a false sense of equality where there isn't one. Just because you want to be treated the same as a white man doesn't mean that you are or ever will be in the eyes of many people. But, if you do want to be treated that way, take care to leave off all mentions of your race or gender on your applications (this may mean changing your name, dropping certain scholarships/fellowships or activities, etc.) and see what happens. I don't think anyone has to do that because I don't think it solves anything for society if one does. 

[Eigen]

There is always so much discussion on these boards of transparency and "standards".

 

This isn't a numbers game. It's a fit game.

 

Faculty are going over CVs and "hiring" the people they think will fit best in the department, and be the most successful both at that school and long-term.

 

It's just like any other post-undergraduate position- everything about you matters. Companies don't hire you because you passed a set of bars that gave basic requirements- they hire you because something about you, your accomplishments, your history, or your personality made them feel you would be a really good fit at the company, and it would be mutually beneficial.

 

The same is true for graduate school, and the same will be true when you finish graduate school and start looking for jobs.

 

Graduate schools don't "owe" it to the applicants to be transparent in their process, or how they select applicants. They certainly don't need to justify it to anyone but the administration at their school. They have the right to choose the people they think would best fit their labs, their departments, and will do the best working with and for them. This process is really not significantly different than a job application, and has a great deal more communciation and transparency than any of those systems do.

[Holly44]

bsharpe, you act as though the world is equal when it is not. I personally would want an admissions committee to consider that, while I may not have been a RA in 2-3 labs, I did take advantage of the limited research opportunities available to me at my institution. Thus, as a result, my CV may not be the equivalent of someone else's but that also isn't entirely my fault. I can't force my institutions to offer more research opportunities to undergraduates. I can't make someone give a student money for an otherwise unpaid RA or internship. But, those things result in people having different CVs for reasons that can be entirely unrelated to their skills or abilities. If you (and others on this thread) want to live in a world where you believe that everyone has equal opportunities and race, ethnicity, and gender don't matter, then that's fine. But, as I clearly said above, I don't want to live in that world because it has/perpetuates/creates a false sense of equality where there isn't one. Just because you want to be treated the same as a white man doesn't mean that you are or ever will be in the eyes of many people. But, if you do want to be treated that way, take care to leave off all mentions of your race or gender on your applications (this may mean changing your name, dropping certain scholarships/fellowships or activities, etc.) and see what happens. I don't think anyone has to do that because I don't think it solves anything for society if one does.

You say that you don't want to live in a world where there is a false sense of equality, but how does giving people privileges solely based on their race, ethnicity, or gender promote equality? If anything, it just creates a bigger bias. Furthermore, minorities are not the only ones that have limited opportunities. I am a white woman that grew up in a low SES household and the first one in my family to attend college. I put myself through college by working my butt off and now because of the color of my skin I should be held to higher standards than the guy or girl sitting next to me because it is assumed that I had access to more resources or opportunities? Sorry, but that's kind of ridiculous. 

[mseph]

It sounds like some of the posts on race/gender factor are somewhat exaggerated. Yes, it is certainly a factor, but this is not as deterministic as some comments here imply. This is a bit ridiculous hypothetical example, but just because an applicant is a female, low SES, and from a minority group, it doesn't mean that she will get into Harvard.There is no department that will admit an "unqualified" applicant just because of race and gender. There is no department who will "lower the bar" for those who are from a minority group. No department will ever, "give privileges" to those applicants based on race and gender.

 

You need to have strong credentials and relevant experience to apply to grad schools in first place.  We will never know what really goes on inside the admissions committee, but generally speaking, the factor about your background never comes up in early stage of the process. That is, admissions committees usually look at GPA and GRE scores first, and reject those who do not pass their minimum standard, whatever that may be. Then they will probably look at LoR's, and make sure all three of your letters are strong. I've come across a comment that even one average-letter may put your application in a reject-pile because all applicants these days have strong letters. Then it will probably the statement of purpose and writing sample to determine who will be more fit to the program, and to discern whether your research experience can contribute to the department and if department has the right tools available for you to succeed.

 

At the last stage, this will be probably the stage where the factors on gender, race, SES, and personal background will come into play. But at this stage, though, there are TONS of other factors being considered, not just race and gender. And who knows which factor will top another? Besides race and gender, they may look at whether you have family members working at the institution (come on, applications ask us if we have any family/relatives working at the school, and they are asking for a reason), your outside experience, internship/volunteer/work experience even though they may not be relevant to the field, the school you went to, etc... This will be rather a rare case, but if your family was rich and donated $$ to the department or school in the past, that might be a factor, too. All these things are pretty much equally considered at the later stage, once they believe all the applicants who passed up to the last stage are strong applicants with good fit.

 

Are these fair? Hard to tell. But by the last stage of their admissions process, all applicants will have strong credentials, good amount of research experience, and a good fit. They just need to consider other factors to finalize their decision. Personally, I don't think these factors by themselves are good indicators of whether the applicant will be successful. But given that the race/gender is just one of the many factors, I don't understand the frustration particularly with race/gender, when the rest of other factors seem equally arbitrary to me. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by visgiven

[Emnoda]

For those who are rejected, I will return the $125 application fee

[TXInstrument11]

Wow. Let's set the record straight here. I am certainly not stupid enough to think that society is equal and that everything with our education system is all fine and dandy.

While I suggested that details LIKE age, race, and sex be scraped from early rounds of apps, I am not actually opposed to affirmative action-esque policies.

Ironically, my reason for suggesting this was actually about levelling the playing field for those from less well-known schools and to combat favoritism (e.g.for a friend's student/child). Those "good ol' boy network" problems are a much more pressing concern for me than race or gender. Removing identifying information was simply to make that system much harder to maintain. Faculty would have to deliberately game the system by memorizing an applicant's test scores and GPA, and I don't think most would be will to go that far.

Finally, I don't think admissions committees "owe" me anything. This thread was to talk about what we would *ideally* want from an admissions committee in a perfect world. And so what if apps in other domains (job world) are unfair? That doesn't preclude improvement in this one.

Edited March 17, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[mseph]

Wow. Let's set the record straight here. I am certainly not stupid enough to think that society is equal and that everything with our education system is all fine and dandy.

While I suggested that details LIKE age, race, and sex be scraped from early rounds of apps, I am not actually opposed to affirmative action-esque policies.

Ironically, my reason for suggesting this was actually about levelling the playing field for those from less well-known schools and to combat favoritism (e.g.for a friend's student/child). Those "good ol' boy network" problems are a much more pressing concern for me than race or gender. Removing identifying information was simply to make that system much harder to maintain. Faculty would have to deliberately game the system by memorizing an applicant's test scores and GPA, and I don't think most would be will to go that far.

Finally, I don't think admissions committees "owe" me anything. This thread was to talk about what we would *ideally* want from an admissions committee in a perfect world. And so what if apps in other domains (job world) are unfair? That doesn't preclude improvement in this one.

Yeah, I agree. But it seems some misunderstood what you really meant. My post was largely a reaction to those who said minorities are more privileged in the admissions process because the admissions committee will lower the bar for them or white people are discriminated because they will be assumed to have had more resources. I just wanted to note that that's not the case. 

[mb712]

You say that you don't want to live in a world where there is a false sense of equality, but how does giving people privileges solely based on their race, ethnicity, or gender promote equality? If anything, it just creates a bigger bias. Furthermore, minorities are not the only ones that have limited opportunities. I am a white woman that grew up in a low SES household and the first one in my family to attend college. I put myself through college by working my butt off and now because of the color of my skin I should be held to higher standards than the guy or girl sitting next to me because it is assumed that I had access to more resources or opportunities? Sorry, but that's kind of ridiculous.

Who has more social obstacles to break through, a white woman first-gen student from a low SES or a black woman first-gen student from a low SES? Just because things happened to work out for you when you put in the time doesn't mean that everyone from any minority or disadvantaged group has the opportunity to even attempt to do the same.

Say I'm at a concert with two friends, one who is 5'0" and one who is 6'2". I let the shorter one stand on my seat in order to see the stage. Does that mean I'm altering the advantages or disadvantages of/creating a bias against the taller friend? No.

[RosyPosy68]

I would reapply under an alias just so I could watch what an admissions process really looks likes with my materials.  And then I would ultimately accept myself, of course.

[ssynny]

For those who are rejected, I will return the $125 application fee

[isilya]

For those who are rejected, I will return the $125 application fee

[ERR_Alpha]

When I was in high school, four of my friends applied to MIT. Two upper middle class white men, one middle class white woman, and a first generation Indian woman who was still fairly wealthy. The two women got in and the men did not, all all they did was run their mouths about how "unfair" it was. First of all, both of them got into institutions of a similar caliber (Northwestern, Johns Hopkins) so it wasn't like they were totally blocked from obtaining a degree. Also, it is completely up to the institution who they would find a better fit. Personally, your credentials can only say so much. An upper class white man with a first author pub and a ton of research is not necessarily a better fit than a lower class minority woman with less experience. This is why we write SOPs- so our personal experiences can differentiate us. Wanting diversity in an entering class isn't unfairly helping others- its creating a better environment for everyone.

[babybird]

For those who are rejected, I will return the $125 application fee

Amen!

 

(Ps sorry for my fat fingers - I meant to vote your post up, not down!)

[dr. t]

You say that you don't want to live in a world where there is a false sense of equality, but how does giving people privileges solely based on their race, ethnicity, or gender promote equality? If anything, it just creates a bigger bias. Furthermore, minorities are not the only ones that have limited opportunities. I am a white woman that grew up in a low SES household and the first one in my family to attend college. I put myself through college by working my butt off and now because of the color of my skin I should be held to higher standards than the guy or girl sitting next to me because it is assumed that I had access to more resources or opportunities? Sorry, but that's kind of ridiculous. 

 

You seem to be under some misapprehensions about what is meant by privilege, how it operates, and how the use of criteria such as race in admissions attempts to counteract the disparity created by privilege. Here is a good read to get you started on understanding what is actually at stake: http://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege/

 

You should read that now, and then finish this post.

 

Done? OK.

 

Because of the color of your skin, you may or may not have had access to more resources and opportunities. However, because of the color of your skin, you are much less likely to be stopped by police. When you are stopped by police, you are much less likely to be arrested or ticketed, all because of the color of your skin. Because of the color of your skin, it is easier for you to find an apartment. Because of the color of your skin, it is easier for you to find a job. Because of the color of your skin, you were less likely to be singled out as a "troublemaker" in school. Despite the challenges you have almost certainly faced and overcome in your life through your own intelligence and force of will, you were more likely to succeed because of the color of your skin. That is our reality, and an admissions program should take reality into account when making its decisions.

 

Further readings:

http://gawker.com/my-vassar-college-faculty-id-makes-everything-ok-1664133077

http://documents.latimes.com/investigation-ferguson-police-department/

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

Edited March 17, 2015 by telkanuru

[ERR_Alpha]

http://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness

Should've shared this in my earlier post. Really great example of how we become blind to our privledges.

[TXInstrument11]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Has anyone bothered to read my subsequent comments or are we all more interested in arguing until the cows come home about something I didn't even mean?

To summarize: I don't think society is equal or that minorities get undue favoritism in the admissions process, I am more concerned about Ivy League incest and nepotism than so-called "reverse racism", and I don't presume that universities "owe" me anything.

If I could go back and edit my original post to clarify my meaning, I would, but can't because the post is too old.

Edited March 17, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[ERR_Alpha]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Has anyone bothered to read my subsequent comments or are we all more interested in arguing until the cows come home about something I didn't even mean?

To summarize: I don't think society is equal or that minorities get undue favoritism in the admissions process, I am more concerned about Ivy League incest and nepotism than so-called "reverse racism", and I don't presume that universities "owe" me anything.

If I could go back and edit my original post to clarify my meaning, I would, but can't because the post is too old.

I'm not directing my posts directly at you, I'm just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I don't think anyone is personally attacking you.

[TXInstrument11]

I'm not directing my posts directly at you, I'm just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I don't think anyone is personally attacking you.

Fair enough. It's just that I was mentioned in a few posts or essentially quoted (using the same terms as me) and I felt like I was being described as ignorant, racist, naive, whiny, or all of the above. And when I did post in response, I have mostly gotten silence.

Edited March 18, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[TXInstrument11]

Yeah, I agree. But it seems some misunderstood what you really meant. My post was largely a reaction to those who said minorities are more privileged in the admissions process because the admissions committee will lower the bar for them or white people are discriminated because they will be assumed to have had more resources. I just wanted to note that that's not the case.

I understand. I really should have anticipated how item 10 could be interpreted and rewrote it accordingly. I am still not convinced that minorities benefit from having their race listed on their application at the graduate level in psycholoy,but I certainly don't see much evidence that they have a special advantage. In fact, I see mostly the opposite - lily white departments.

At the same time, an applicant's struggles with being from a disadvantaged background is an appropriate topic for the SOP and should be taken into consideration. This would come into play, as it probably does now, after the initial round of rejections.

However, I do think it's appropriate for applicants from who would otherwise be eliminated by such a system to contact professors beforehand for their support and to explain what happened.

It's great advice and I get why people do it in this hyper-competitive environment, but contacting profs like this has always reeked of brown nosing unless someone has something pointed to bring up about their app(as would be the case with someone from a disadvantaged background).

[To be sure, I hate the admissions "game", not the Student "players" who are just doing what's necessary]

Edited March 18, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[Eigen]

I didn't have as much of a problem with 10, I think 3 and 4, and potentially 1, are as damaging to applicants as they are helpful, perhaps more so.

 

I think you also underestimate how much time it takes to deal with hundreds of emails from propsective students.

 

I'm also clear as to what you think the admissions "game" is, other than trying to show that you're the best fit for a position?

[TXInstrument11]

I didn't have as much of a problem with 10, I think 3 and 4, and potentially 1, are as damaging to applicants as they are helpful, perhaps more so.

I think you also underestimate how much time it takes to deal with hundreds of emails from propsective students.

I'm also clear as to what you think the admissions "game" is, other than trying to show that you're the best fit for a position?

I am concerned when who you know or where you're from matter more than your aptitude.

#1 is for efficiency. Schools do this anyway;a Qualtrics-like system would just speed it up.

I don't understand why 3&4 would be bad. Such information would help applicants understand where they stand in the applicant pool and what the school is generally looking for. Exceptions can and should be made for stats, but I think schools are being dishonest when they would not admit an applicant with stats below a certain threshold 99% of the time and fail to indicate that.

Reduced load would also help the email situation.

Edited March 18, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[Eigen]

Because stats are the least important part of the application, and listing them just reinforces the impression that they matter. As evidenced in this post, here.

 

The stats of the people accepted in the past (especially averages) are pretty pointless in the scheme of things.

 

Your stats will effect things, sure, but good stats don't make up for bad SoP, references, research experience, and the rest of your package. And bad stats will only do so much to an otherwise outstanding applicant.

 

And as to 1, a qualtrics system reinforces the view that stats are important. They really aren't.

 

You can't reduce applicants to numbers, every bit of how they write, how they put together their CV, and what they say in their SoP actually does matter.

[TXInstrument11]

Because stats are the least important part of the application, and listing them just reinforces the impression that they matter. As evidenced in this post, here.

The stats of the people accepted in the past (especially averages) are pretty pointless in the scheme of things.

Your stats will effect things, sure, but good stats don't make up for bad SoP, references, research experience, and the rest of your package. And bad stats will only do so much to an otherwise outstanding applicant.

And as to 1, a qualtrics system reinforces the view that stats are important. They really aren't.

You can't reduce applicants to numbers, every bit of how they write, how they put together their CV, and what they say in their SoP actually does matter.

Because stats are the least important part of the application, and listing them just reinforces the impression that they matter. As evidenced in this post, here.

The stats of the people accepted in the past (especially averages) are pretty pointless in the scheme of things.

Your stats will effect things, sure, but good stats don't make up for bad SoP, references, research experience, and the rest of your package. And bad stats will only do so much to an otherwise outstanding applicant.

And as to 1, a qualtrics system reinforces the view that stats are important. They really aren't.

You can't reduce applicants to numbers, every bit of how they write, how they put together their CV, and what they say in their SoP actually does matter.

That may be the case in chemistry, but it is far from true in psychology. Checking stats for admitted students to top schools confirms this. I often see averages of 3.8 and "lows" of 3.5-3.7.

Applicant pools are simply too large to have it any other way. There's also the fact that - let's face it - psychology is a much less demanding major. Lower GPAs in the hard sciences are more understandable because the course load is much tougher.

Also, your SOP and CV are irrelevant if you're cut based on stats in the first round, and that is extremely common (if not the norm).

Edited March 18, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[dr. t]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Has anyone bothered to read my subsequent comments or are we all more interested in arguing until the cows come home about something I didn't even mean?

 

You may not have, but others have since joined the conversation, and they certainly did. Ain't all about you.

[TXInstrument11]

You may not have, but others have since joined the conversation, and they certainly did. Ain't all about you.

It is when people list my username and use my terms to pseudo-quote me. 

 

By all means, move on from my post. I honestly wish I'd never written the damn thing in the first place.