Welcome to the 2016-17 cycle!

[StrengthandHonor]

Just now, krapp said:

You'll get an email to check your page. Then there is a link right in the middle of your application status page to view the letter.

Thanks. I guess that means that I'm still in the running at Northwestern, then. 

[Mike_Novick]

23 hours ago, RevTheory1126 said:

Is it weird that they didn't send out an email that these were emailed? They are using the same application system that Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, etc. are using and they all sent out emails...? Bizarre... Still can't steal my joy.

Yeah, among those that use Applyweb (to which I applied), Penn was they only one who didn't send a notification e-mail. Others, like Cornell and Princeton, sent their rejection letter by e-mail, but didn't post their decision at the portal.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Mike_Novick

[PSapplicant]

Hey there! I was waitlisted at Yale and I received this confirmation this morning : "We hope to know shortly after April 15 whether it will be possible to admit additional students to the Department". Knowing that offers must be accepted before April 15th, I was wondering if some universities went to the waitlist even after the 15th, or if it was just a way to tell me to wait as long as possible. I have other offers - not as good as Yale though - so I obviously won't take the risk to decline them and hope to go off the waitlist after the April 15th deadline. Thanks!

[dih2]

What schools should we expect to hear from this week?

[oakeshott]

25 minutes ago, dih2 said:

What schools should we expect to hear from this week?

Based on my previous intel, Harvard will be out today or tomorrow.

And based on newer intel, it sounds like this was a particularly tough cycle to be applying to Harvard. 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by oakeshott

[nate3869]

23 minutes ago, oakeshott said:

Based on my previous intel, Harvard will be out today or tomorrow.

And based on newer intel, it sounds like this was a particularly tough cycle to be applying to Harvard. 

 

Care to elaborate any on that?

[Eurocrat]

On 25/02/2017 at 10:30 PM, Mike_Novick said:

Yeah, I didn't receive any messages from them as well. For me, it's Harvard, Oxford, LSE or bust.

Looks like we're in exactly the same boat then...

[oakeshott]

5 minutes ago, nate3869 said:

Care to elaborate any on that?

Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year.

[nate3869]

8 minutes ago, oakeshott said:

Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year.

Oh joy. Well thanks for the info

[dih2]

8 minutes ago, oakeshott said:

Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year.

Does this have to do with Harvard's funding cuts/reduction of spots across grad schools? Also, do you happen to know if it applies across sub fields?

more generally, how does that work? Are there quotas within departments for the various subfields?

[resDQ]

22 minutes ago, oakeshott said:

Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year.

 

"Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year." is something a lot of schools (from my sources) have mentioned. 

 

*so much so I doubt how true it is. In the case of Harvard it may be, but I doubt they don't have a high yield every year....

Edited February 27, 2017 by resDQ
*additional comment

[HermioneWannabe]

18 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Does this have to do with Harvard's funding cuts/reduction of spots across grad schools? Also, do you happen to know if it applies across sub fields?

more generally, how does that work? Are there quotas within departments for the various subfields?

I did see an article saying they were cutting 4% of the grad spots due to funding.

[oakeshott]

13 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Does this have to do with Harvard's funding cuts/reduction of spots across grad schools? Also, do you happen to know if it applies across sub fields?

more generally, how does that work? Are there quotas within departments for the various subfields?

My understanding is that: (1) in this particular case the main factor is last year's yield rather than the funding cuts; and (2) the reduction in spots applies to the dept as a whole. How much of the reduction is absorbed by each subfield probably depends on the current distribution of students, but that's just guesswork. 

2 minutes ago, resDQ said:

 

"Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year." is something a lot of schools (from my sources) have mentioned. 

Interesting. If last year was a high-yield year across the board (or even just across the top departments), I wonder why that was the case. 

[VMcJ]

9 minutes ago, resDQ said:

 

"Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year." is something a lot of schools (from my sources) have mentioned. 

Two schools that accepted me mentioned it (the other three did not comment on that, and I didn't ask). Apparently demand was higher than expected last cycle across the board.

[changeisgood]

12 minutes ago, VMcJ said:

Two schools that accepted me mentioned it (the other three did not comment on that, and I didn't ask). Apparently demand was higher than expected last cycle across the board.

I can vouch for that as well.  I ended up in my current M.A. program because last cycle was extremely competitive, more applicants than they've had in years, and they just couldn't get me into the PhD program.  Turned out well for me, though, as this time around I got into a much better program with better funding!  Another interesting thing is that roughly 40% of the "very competitive" cohort here dropped out after the first year, FWIW.

My waitlist letter from Indiana also mentioned an unusually high number of qualified applicants this year (although they didn't give numbers).

[VMcJ]

1 minute ago, changeisgood said:

Another interesting thing is that roughly 40% of the "very competitive" cohort here dropped out after the first year, FWIW.

Honestly, I'd like to see one day a screening process that can really separate those with higher chances of not dropping out from those that probably will. I understand people drop out for several reasons and not all of them are predictable, but still seems to be that many people go into graduate studies without really understanding what is it like.

[Monody]

I think that it is important to note that given the low number of admitted students, 4% turns out to be about 1 spot. Of course, it can be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection, but the chances do not become that much smaller.

[oakeshott]

11 minutes ago, Monody said:

I think that it is important to note that given the low number of admitted students, 4% turns out to be about 1 spot. Of course, it can be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection, but the chances do not become that much smaller.

See above: I was not referring to reductions due to funding cuts, but rather to more significant ones as a result of last year's high yield.

Edited February 27, 2017 by oakeshott

[Monody]

9 minutes ago, oakeshott said:

See above: I was not referring to reductions due to funding cuts, but rather to more significant ones as a result of last year's high yield.

It was meant as a reply to an earlier post regarding the funding/endowment reduction.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Monody

[dih2]

19 minutes ago, Monody said:

I think that it is important to note that given the low number of admitted students, 4% turns out to be about 1 spot. Of course, it can be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection, but the chances do not become that much smaller.

Well, I think it matters where that 1 spot falls. If it falls in theory, for example, we go from 4 spots to 3. That's a rather sizable reduction in your chances...

[guest56436]

57 minutes ago, VMcJ said:

Honestly, I'd like to see one day a screening process that can really separate those with higher chances of not dropping out from those that probably will. I understand people drop out for several reasons and not all of them are predictable, but still seems to be that many people go into graduate studies without really understanding what is it like.

Yeah and it's frustrating for people that have been preparing for this for like 4 years and have taken a number of grad courses in a reputable program to have these flimsy students take spots.

[dih2]

4 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Yeah and it's frustrating for people that have been preparing for this for like 4 years and have taken a number of grad courses in a reputable program to have these flimsy students take spots.

Isn't the admissions process itself this screening process? Do these departments accept students who haven't demonstrated that they will likely succeed in the program?

[VMcJ]

3 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Isn't the admissions process itself this screening process? Do these departments accept students who haven't demonstrated that they will likely succeed in the program?

It should be, but apparently a significant number of mistakes happen every cycle. First-year drop-outs at 40%, as mentioned above, is very worrying.

[Wallflower8]

Hey. Anybody here knows how much Penn offers in fin aid? 

Thanks in advance. 

[guest56436]

38 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Isn't the admissions process itself this screening process? Do these departments accept students who haven't demonstrated that they will likely succeed in the program?

Well, it is presumably supposed to be. But it's track record of predicting who will last and who won't is not very good. Of course, I don't think anyone should expect it to be perfect.

It seems the admissions process is fairly reliable for determining especially strength of applicant/student and potential. You can see that every cycle in these threads. There are a handful of applicants every year that do extremely well across the board. Then there are a handful that get rejected from most or all places. It also does an adequate job of sorting students into the tier of programs that they should probably belong to (not perfect by any means though).

But it doesn't seem like a very good indicator for predicting attrition. Attrition rates for most programs - even top ones - are somewhere around 50%. That's extremely high. Now, I don't think attrition rates should be 0% or else your program isn't rigorous enough (and we certainly wouldn't want the potential candidates pool for academic jobs to double which would be a disaster).

But I also see an admissions process that looks for the best students rather than potentially the most promising or committed ones. Large emphases on pedigree, GPA, GRE, ect. that really doesn't indicate a whole lot. 

I did a masters in a program affiliated to a top 25 program and watched attrition closely. Out of a cohort of around 20, 2 or 3 people didn't make it past the first year and a half (one even dropped out after the first semester). Another 2 probably won't even make it to comps. Then a bunch will take the masters and leave. It's crazy how unprepared and unfamiliar these students were with what grad school entails. This is typical across many programs.

That being said, I am sure the admissions process is difficult to do. Lots of applicants and lots of noise in the process.

But I do think there are a few things these programs could do:

1) It's interesting that there is a real lack of an interview process throughout the discipline. Most sciences programs employ them extensively. Even other humanities/social sciences like sociology and history use them quite a bit as well. One way of weeding out those great students that don't really know what they doing/committed is through interviewing them.

2) Smaller cohorts. I really see no reason why some departments have these massive cohorts. Yeah, they need TAs of course, but there are ways of addressing this. The academic market is saturated as it is...and having smaller cohorts that support their students better would make attrition less likely.

3) Political science as a discipline could make masters programs more prevalent and/or used as breeding grounds for developing good candidates for top programs. Other disciplines and countries do this, not sure why political science doesn't. A student who has been through a rigorous masters program is much less likely to not know what they are getting themselves into. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Comparativist