Forthcoming book re: grad admissions committees

[greenmt]

This article in Inside Higher Education discusses a new book out soon from Harvard University Press on the subject of how (elite... but aren't they sorta all?) PhD admissions committees work. It's not clear whether any of the profiled departments are literature departments, but at least some are in the  humanities, and I remember this topic coming up fairly regularly when I was a more consistent checker-in here.  Unsurprising surprises: GRE scores seem to get more consideration than programs like to let on, internal department politics play a role, and participants support diversity in the abstract while prizing people with backgrounds and career goals like their own.

That summary sounds more cynical than I meant it to.  I have to say I find it refreshing to see people owning up to some of this stuff, and I look forward to reading the book.  Change starts with the recognition of an unsatisfactory situation. The surprising thing to me was glimpsing how much the process is driven by fear.  Real attention to genuine diversity - race, gender, age, cultural and educational background - has made many other fields more robust.  Corporate America, for all its many faults, recognized that a long time ago now.  Academics have everything to gain, and very little to lose, by broadening the scope of voices being heard.  For example, one way to recruit more undergraduate English majors is to have more English professors who share some life experience or cultural background with the (infinitely more diverse than when I was 18) undergraduate population. 

[steps off soapbox]

[sarabethke]

I saw that this morning! I don't think it was necessarily saying that the GRE was "important" in the way that it indicates success, but that it's used as a cutoff which I thought was kind of commonly known. Some people say that one item will not make or break your application, but when it comes to a very low GRE score it really might. The points about diversity were pretty disheartening to me, because it kind of reinforces the importance of race in making decisions, whether that means favoring whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, or other US minorities. I did find it to be an interesting read! Indeed, despite the promise of anonymity, I was a little shocked at some of the frankness of some faculty when talking to the researcher.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, sarabethke said:

I saw that this morning! I don't think it was necessarily saying that the GRE was "important" in the way that it indicates success, but that it's used as a cutoff which I thought was kind of commonly known. Some people say that one item will not make or break your application, but when it comes to a very low GRE score it really might. The points about diversity were pretty disheartening to me, because it kind of reinforces the importance of race in making decisions, whether that means favoring whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, or other US minorities. I did find it to be an interesting read! Indeed, despite the promise of anonymity, I was a little shocked at some of the frankness of some faculty when talking to the researcher.

 

I think the point about GRE scores, though, is that departments say one thing and do another. I've seen so many department pages that say things like, "We look at GRE scores but we're more interested in the applicant's overall application." (Or they list a cutoff that's really low.) I've personally never believed this is true, and I wish that departments would be more upfront about how they use the scores.

I also hope that this study puts to rest once and for all the myth that graduate admissions is a level playing field for everyone regardless of their background, BA-granting institution, and other features over which they have no control. That's never been true, and I think the article makes a good point that committees are more inclined to "play it safe" these days. Playing it safe often means admitting candidates who share the backgrounds and values of the admissions committee. 

[dr. t]

On 1/6/2016 at 3:07 PM, greenmt said:

Real attention to genuine diversity - race, gender, age, cultural and educational background - has made many other fields more robust.  Corporate America, for all its many faults, recognized that a long time ago now.  

I am not particularly sure either of these things are true.

[random_grad]

"any attrition is viewed as a disaster"

they care for us

Edited January 10, 2016 by random_grad

[MarineBluePsy]

I read the article too and the comments about diversity were upsetting.  I always had a feeling that's what happened, but hearing it confirmed wasn't great.  The comments about the applicant who attended a religious university really bothered me.  I kept thinking, seriously?  Aren't these the same professors that are supposed to be teaching students the importance of not making snap judgments and the value of interacting with those who have different experiences?  Yet another reason I hope this is the last application season I have to do.

[ExponentialDecay]

I don't understand why people are surprised that professors are people. Like all people, they make snap judgments, they have prejudices, they can be petty, cruel, arrogant, magnanimous, kind, empathetic. They have different intelligences and value different types of intelligence. They are not a priori any better than us lesser mortals by virtue of being permanently employed at a university.

"Liberals always confuse character with education" - E.L. Doctorow, Book of Daniel.

Edited January 10, 2016 by ExponentialDecay

[Guest]

On 1/10/2016 at 4:59 PM, ExponentialDecay said:

I don't understand why people are surprised that professors are people. Like all people, they make snap judgments, they have prejudices, they can be petty, cruel, arrogant, magnanimous, kind, empathetic. They have different intelligences and value different types of intelligence. They are not a priori any better than us lesser mortals by virtue of being permanently employed at a university.

"Liberals always confuse character with education" - E.L. Doctorow, Book of Daniel.

 

I don't think anyone here was surprised though? Disappointed maybe, but not surprised.

And I actually think that we need to keep doing studies like this one, even if the results are obvious. If it forces people to confront the inequities in the admissions process, it's not a bad thing. This study sounds like it will be easy to dismiss because it's so anecdotal, so it would be nice to see something a little more comprehensive. 

[NowMoreSerious]

I think it's pretty amazing that, if they are as concerned with diversity as they say, there still exists what I believe is a crisis of lack of people of color in Ph.D. programs. 

I am aware, of course, that some of that is due to larger structural inequalities in class and education as a whole, but regardless, not much is being done other than accepting people of color that are already primed for it.