What happens to your 'spot' when you turn down a PhD application?

[borednow]

In early February I was invited to an interview for a PhD programme. I realise that there were only two candidates on the shortlist, and only one was going to be selected by the department. A couple of weeks later I was informed that my application was unsuccessful, so I presumed that the other candidate was not only selected, but she had immediately committed to the university well before the April 15 deadline, which is why I was informed so quickly. Then, recently, I found out that the he has actually committed herself to a different university instead. Presumably that means that there is now an open slot in the previous university, but if that was indeed the case, why didn't they contact the 'runner-up'? (i.e. me)

P.S. When I e-mailed my potential supervisor about what went wrong with my application (in February), he mentioned that the other candidate was not necessarily 'better', but he was a better fit for the department. He encouraged me to apply again next year, and that I will still stand a very good chance of acceptance if I do.

Edited July 11, 2016 by borednow

[fuzzylogician]

This works differently at different schools. There is a chance that a department might interview a candidate who they consider a finalist, and post-interview decide that they would not want to make that candidate an offer, regardless of whether or not anyone else accepts their offer because of fit or any other issue. Assuming that is not the case, based on what you were told, two things might happen once an offer is made: some schools might have a waitlist and would be able to make an offer to a second candidate if their top choice declines. At other schools that may simply not be an option -- they may only get to make one offer and hope that the candidate accepts, but they can't reuse the money to make an offer to a second choice, in case the first choice declines. The reasons behind this funding setup are complicated but the bottom line is that whatever the other candidate chose to do, it's possible that once you were not selected, there was no way of changing your outcome.

So options for what might have happened include at least the following:
- there was no waitlist, you were out as soon as the offer went to someone else; 
- you only have partial information, and in fact there were other candidates who were interviewed who you are not aware of, and one of them was selected instead of you, so the position was filled.
- funding is distributed to the department more generally; you may have been on a waitlist, but others were ahead of you on it and accepted their offers, so your potential advisor might have ended up with no students because there wasn't enough funding to go around for everyone, and other professors got their choice instead.  
- some other unknown reason why the money didn't go to you even though at some stage it may have been temporarily available

[TakeruK]

My department is an example of a department where once we make a final list of people to admit, then that is the final list. Even if no one from this lists accepts, or everyone defers, we do not take more students. There is one year in recent memory where we had no new students and a few other years where we had very few (2 or fewer).

In addition to the funding situation, another resource that is constrained is time/effort. Accepting a student means investing 5+ years of people's time into training this person, which can be costly even if the department has the funding. 

So, I would second the words of your potential supervisor. Don't think of admissions as a competition between "who is better". It's not about looking at the pool of candidates and trying to fill X spots with the "best" people. Instead, it's about finding the best match between the student applicant and the needs of the department, within the financial and time limitations of the department. The first part (best match with needs) will certainly change from year to year. I definitely notice changes in how many admitted students are from particular subfields from year-to-year, as the department seeks to find a balance it wants in its interests. 

[borednow]

Thanks fuzzylogician and takeruk, some very helpful points. I'm looking to apply again for 2017, and there are still a few questions:

1. The potential supervisor also mentioned that the other candidate's research can only be done at their programme, whereas mine could have worked in a number of other institutes. Assuming that they are indeed unable to make an offer to the runner-up if the first choice did not accept, could it be that they were selecting the candidate who is less likely to turn down their offer (i.e. with the more specific research)? If so, how do I overcome the 'problem' of having a relatively versatile research topic?

2. Given that they probably did not accept a graduate student this year, what happens to the allocated funding? Would they be able to, say, accept an extra student next year?

3. Will I stand a better chance if I attend the interview in person? (I was interviewed via skype, since they do not fly in international students)

[fuzzylogician]

1. There are other ways to read that comment. What I would take from it is that the other candidate demonstrated clear fit with the particular program in question, and you didn't do as good a job. They can see you pursuing your interests at a variety of other places and it's not clear why this school is the right one. If correct, it means that you should work on better demonstrating fit with the program you are applying to. You could also work at hinting or straight up saying that the program is your top choice (but don't lie, you can't say that to everyone).

It is possible that they chose someone who they think doesn't have many other options, but if so there is not much you can do about it. You can improve your own application, but you can't control how other applicants' applications look or what considerations go into making an admissions decision. I don't think it's ever just one thing, though, so I don't think it's as simple as you put it. And sometimes it really is just a matter of luck. There are often more good candidates than open spots, and each one would truly be a good choice. The decision may very well come down to details that are completely outside of your control. 

2. So many things could have happened to the money. I don't think there is a clear answer to that. If I had to guess, I probably would say no, there is no guarantee that there would be an extra spot next year. You need to look at pattens and think beyond just what happened this one year to this one spot you interviewed for. Maybe the money went to another student this year who would work with another professor. Maybe it went to better funding for current students. Maybe it means they can hire two undergraduate research assistants for some professor's project. There are questions of advising loads and funding and sabbaticals and who knows what else at the departmental level. Maybe there are no new students but five will graduate and need more attention next year. Maybe a grant is running out. Or a new one is starting. There are so many moving parts that we don't have any information about. 

3. Maybe. Probably. Doing interviews in person is usually better than on Skype. How much better, how knows, could be a little, could be a lot. Whether it's worth the expense is totally up to you. In this particular case it's not clear that it's the (Skype) interview that was the deciding factor. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by fuzzylogician

[TakeruK]

1. I agree with this fuzzy that this comment seems to imply that you did not demonstrate a strong enough fit with this department (see also response to #2 below). Directly (and honestly) telling your top choice program that it is your top choice could help. But words are just words sometimes. If you truly think this is the best place for you to do your research, you need to convey this message in your application. You can still do this with a "versatile" research interest. In your SOP, express exactly why this specific program is the best place for you to achieve your graduate school goals.

To do this, my recommendation would be to describe what your graduate school goals are. Go beyond the research topic here, and discuss what you want to get out of graduate school. Then, describe how you are going to achieve these goals and how this specific program will have the right resources to meet them. For example, in my application, I was not that specific in my research topic. In fact, the topic I am working on now for my PhD thesis wasn't even mentioned as an interest in my SOP. Instead, my SOP was about what skills and experience I wanted to gain from graduate school. I wrote that I wanted to learn how to be an observational astronomer and use my existing knowledge of theory to gather data and develop new research programs. My school was the best fit for this because they own and/or have access to the best telescopes in the world. 

2. This depends on where the money came from as well as what the department wants to do. If the money came from outside of the department (e.g. from the school), then it is probably gone. Usually school-wide fellowships are awarded to the Top X candidates from across the campus so if your dept's candidate turned down the offer, it would have either disappeared or went to another department's candidate.

If the money would have came from department-level funds, then it may or may not be there next year. Maybe one student will take a year longer than expected, so the department would prefer to use that money to support that student for an extra year. Or, maybe a student is having a bad fit with their advisor and need to change advisors but has no one willing to support them for this current year, so the department will step in. Or, this money really is put aside for accepting a new person next year.

If the money came from the professor that was specifically looking for a student, then it's also not certain. Funds from grants may expire by next year, so maybe they decided to hire a part time research associate, or use it to partially fund a postdoc etc. to do this work instead. But it's possible that it will be available next year too.

However, with all of that said, I want to echo what I said above---admissions is not a competition for the X best candidates by some objective means. Instead, it is a search for the X best-fitting candidates by a metric subject to the current department's year-to-year needs. I feel like you are trying to keep track of spots and "quantify" the process when it's not really about accounting.

Note: It also depends a lot on what kind of school this is. At top schools with lots of money, they have the means to absorb losses from year to year. As I said before, my program is not afraid to take 0 students if that is the outcome of the application process. It seems like we aim for 20-24 students total, and admit on average, 4 students per year. But, we have admitted multiple years above average (one recent pattern was 7 students, 5 students, 7 students). 3 years in a row above average means this will deplete the "savings" of the department a little bit, but because they have a big pot of money, they can survive the long term average. This allows my department to not lose a chance at a student they really want just because there are also 4 other good students that year. At the same time, this is why my department won't take another student even if there is a lower number than normal. They would prefer to wait 2 or 3 years for the best-fit candidate than to take whoever is available in any given year, even if there is money for an extra spot. 

3. Nothing else to add to what fuzzy already wrote!