Accepted at Reach Schools, Rejected at Safety Schools

[ApplicantOhio123]

I have applied to 11 biosciencey PhD programs at a decent range of quality of schools. My reach schools were WashU, UWisconsin (3 programs here) and UMichigan. My "safety/mid range" schools were Utah, Oregon Health and Science (2 programs here), Oregon, Cincinnati, Montana and Montana State. So far I have heard back from around half and the only two interviews I have gotten have been with "reach" programs. I have an interview with Wisconsin and Michigan. I have gotten rejected from Utah, Oregon, one program at Oregon Health and Science and WashU. What is even crazier to me is that I just did an REU at Utah with the same program I applied to. My GRE and GPA were all either at or higher than their average accepted applicant pool. The PI I had wrote a good enough letter to get me interviews with Wisconsin and Michigan so I feel like he liked me enough. 

Anyone have any insight on what could be happening? It doesn't make any sense to me.

[rising_star]

Fit. It's quite possible your fit was better at your reach schools. There are really no safety schools when it comes to grad school applications.

[Unimpressed3D]

Congrats! I'm assuming you'd rather go to your reach schools?

As to your question, fit does seem the likeliest explanation.

[Vulpix]

I learned from talking to admissions about PhD applications that the school itself and alleged ranking/statistics literally has no bearing on your likelihood of acceptance, because it's COMPLETELY about fit, and not in the way you might think.  For example, I was going to apply to a PhD at Columbia, and I explained what I wanted to study and my area of specialization.  The admissions people told me that even if I had the MOST impressive resume of ANY candidate, with the HIGHEST scores and the PERFECT essays/recommendations, I would still be automatically rejected if there wasn't only a faculty member whose interests matched mine, but also a faculty member whose interests matched mine AND they were willing and ABLE to take a doctoral student on.  It is a major, multi-year commitment when a professor agrees to take on a doctoral student, and many of them already have a few they are working with and are not in a position to take on more.  You are completely at the mercy of "good timing" when it comes to this.  The ONLY professor whose interests matched mine was also, by random draw of the department, not eligible in the year I was applying to even take a doctoral student.  So in my case, even though I had found a faculty member who FIT me and may have even WANTED to be my advisor, she actually logistically, through no fault of her own or mine, couldn't accept me.

In summary, it's almost completely out of your control and arbitrary, and largely a product of good timing with when faculty are able/willing/interested.  They don't just take you because you're perfect, they take you because they CAN and their PERSONAL study interests match yours in some way.  

Edited January 25, 2016 by Heather1011

[Neist]

2 hours ago, Heather1011 said:

In summary, it's almost completely out of your control and arbitrary, and largely a product of good timing with when faculty are able/willing/interested.  They don't just take you because you're perfect, they take you because they CAN and their PERSONAL study interests match yours in some way.  

This is sound advice. It unfortunately means scholars are closely-related echos of pre-existing scholarly research, but it's still sound advice.

There's perhaps dozens of reasons why you you've yet to only get into your reach programs, and unfortunately you'll probably never know those reasons. Just be happy you got into a program you really wanted to get into.  

[Straussian Dogmatist]

On the topic, I was waitlisted to one of my "safety" schools. Haven't heard back from anywhere else, but it's early. Wonder if this is different from being rejected? As in, I sort of fit or sort of had the grades to make it in. Bad sign for my chances at other programs? The waitlist is small thought - only 5 for a cohort of 10-25. 

I agree with what others are saying - fit is the most likely explanation in your case. Could also be the case that your safeties thought your stats were so good that they didn't think you would consider them among other options. Congratulations! 

Edited January 26, 2016 by JulianMorrisMiller