Some admissions committee insights

[alexis]

Saw this thread, which is a couple years old but had various insights from faculty/grad students who have been a part of the admissions process. Thought I'd pass it along...

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,45917.0.html

[tarski]

eek @ the 11th reply

At my grad school, an appointed grad student (that was me one year) had the task of weeding the 200+ applicants down to 40 or so on the basis of GRE scores, GPA, and completion of prereqs. I remember thinking that the applicants would be horrified if they knew that the application they had completed so diligently was being reviewed by a lowly grad student like me while I sat on the couch in my pajamas eating Fritos.

[LiteratureMajor]

Though I can reasonably understand universities' plights to profit from application season (usually 50 USD from, perhaps, 200+ applicants per grad program?), I find it very offensive that many grad programs are not at all forthcoming about their admittance criteria. At most of the programs I have pursued, the departments are quite close-mouthed about cutoff GPA and GRE scores. "We review applicants holistically," they've often said. Yet committees apparently only "holistically" view the applicants that have not gotten the ax for falling below the GPA and GRE cutoffs. As a fair, hardworking adult genuinely committed to my field of study, I am insulted that I may have fallen prey to the holistic-line and could have saved myself valuable time, effort and money by first determining for myself if I met the basic GPA and GRE requirements. This is not to say that I am not a serious student and that my credentials are poor. I am an honors student and will be soon earning a second Masters degree (am therefore pursuing a PhD, as has been my goal even as a high school student), but my GRE scores are average (which I can be grateful for, being that I was ill with the flu and sleep-deprived from being so sick--of course, adcoms will never know this). I don't mean to rant, but this is terribly frustrating. I simply don't appreciate game-playing when my academic and professional future is at stake....

[socialpsych]

Neato! Thanks for sharing that. Cool to hear from people who are actually on the inside.

[JennyFieldsOriginal]

Thank you for posting this!

I think everyone has to see this. Regardless of whether it is fair, or the "right" or "best" way for the process to go, I think everyone should have this information because it represents a truth not so universally acknowledged among applicants.

I was lucky enough to hear this from numerous professors, but the news is unpopular among students. I don't think it means good grades and test scores guarantee anything, only that they are a pretty darn big deal at top tier institutions. I was so convinced by undergrad gossip/standardized test griping that I made a remark to my LOR writer about being worried that studying so much for GREs was a waste of time. He immediately set me straight.

I completely agree with the previous poster that it's completely unfair, wrong and disingenuous to say that applications are reviewed holistically when it's just not so. I think if they are going to have a GRE cutoff they should take a hard line and tell people not to bother applying to the program if they don't have the tests and GRE scores...or tell people point blank that they will be put into a less favorable pile if they don't meet certain requirements...or something that creates realistic expectations and not unicorns and buttercups nonsense about how the committee reads every syllable of the application and tries to be fair. That way it's out in the open and nobody is being blatantly lied to about their chances. Of course it creates a particular kind of elite reputation to boast lots of applicants to reject, universities always want more money and having people who legitimately have no shot at entrance applying is really great for them...they can weed them out immediately and get the application fee. But it's just plain wrong.

That being said: I have a professor who says he reviews the whole application before looking at scores. That way talent doesn't slip through the cracks. There's most assuredly hope for people who have a weak point, and people who happen to be good test takers shouldn't get arrogant about their chances. When it comes to GREs and transcripts, things can balance out. A well known LOR writer never hurts these things either. Most importantly: the application really and truly doesn't have to be perfect.

I really hope that everything works out for everyone. Just imagining rejection hurts. The application process can really bleed you dry and if it's not for anything it's entirely awful.

[LiteratureMajor]

Thank you for posting this!

I think everyone has to see this. Regardless of whether it is fair, or the "right" or "best" way for the process to go, I think everyone should have this information because it represents a truth not so universally acknowledged among applicants.

I was lucky enough to hear this from numerous professors, but the news is unpopular among students. I don't think it means good grades and test scores guarantee anything, only that they are a pretty darn big deal at top tier institutions. I was so convinced by undergrad gossip/standardized test griping that I made a remark to my LOR writer about being worried that studying so much for GREs was a waste of time. He immediately set me straight.

I completely agree with the previous poster that it's completely unfair, wrong and disingenuous to say that applications are reviewed holistically when it's just not so. I think if they are going to have a GRE cutoff they should take a hard line and tell people not to bother applying to the program if they don't have the tests and GRE scores...or tell people point blank that they will be put into a less favorable pile if they don't meet certain requirements...or something that creates realistic expectations and not unicorns and buttercups nonsense about how the committee reads every syllable of the application and tries to be fair. That way it's out in the open and nobody is being blatantly lied to about their chances. Of course it creates a particular kind of elite reputation to boast lots of applicants to reject, universities always want more money and having people who legitimately have no shot at entrance applying is really great for them...they can weed them out immediately and get the application fee. But it's just plain wrong.

That being said: I have a professor who says he reviews the whole application before looking at scores. That way talent doesn't slip through the cracks. There's most assuredly hope for people who have a weak point, and people who happen to be good test takers shouldn't get arrogant about their chances. When it comes to GREs and transcripts, things can balance out. A well known LOR writer never hurts these things either. Most importantly: the application really and truly doesn't have to be perfect.

I really hope that everything works out for everyone. Just imagining rejection hurts. The application process can really bleed you dry and if it's not for anything it's entirely awful.

Thank you for writing this--and of course to the original poster who shared this information with all of us. I honestly feel better after reading your post.

[Cara]

Cant help but wonder what the cutoffs for the top schools are

[coyabean]

Though I can reasonably understand universities' plights to profit from application season (usually 50 USD from, perhaps, 200+ applicants per grad program?), I find it very offensive that many grad programs are not at all forthcoming about their admittance criteria. At most of the programs I have pursued, the departments are quite close-mouthed about cutoff GPA and GRE scores. "We review applicants holistically," they've often said. Yet committees apparently only "holistically" view the applicants that have not gotten the ax for falling below the GPA and GRE cutoffs. As a fair, hardworking adult genuinely committed to my field of study, I am insulted that I may have fallen prey to the holistic-line and could have saved myself valuable time, effort and money by first determining for myself if I met the basic GPA and GRE requirements. This is not to say that I am not a serious student and that my credentials are poor. I am an honors student and will be soon earning a second Masters degree (am therefore pursuing a PhD, as has been my goal even as a high school student), but my GRE scores are average (which I can be grateful for, being that I was ill with the flu and sleep-deprived from being so sick--of course, adcoms will never know this). I don't mean to rant, but this is terribly frustrating. I simply don't appreciate game-playing when my academic and professional future is at stake....

I agree. I can live with not meeting the bar of a dream school - oh hai Yale -- but I resent, absolutely, being lied to.

Here I again compare this to law schools. You can judge, fairly accurately, how you stand in law school admissions based on your GPA and LSAT. It's brutal but it's transparent and honest.

This is like when guys swear up and down that they look at "inner beauty". I'd rather you say "I really appreciate models and video dancers with low self-esteem." That is so much more fair.

[Sparky]

Given the GRE's well-known bias toward white, middle/upper class American students, I wonder if any schools take cultural factors into account in initial filtering...

[coyabean]

My GRE scores sucked, I got 600 quan and 580 verbal, thank God the committees realized that I have a whole lot more to offer than my GRE scores. I had a decent but not amazing undergrad GPA and a really high grad GPA as well as a lot of other important activities on my CV. All that worry was for nothing really, I feel a lot better now

!

So basically he has my combined GRE score. :/ Nice. I probably won't even be read at most of the schools to which I applied and that hurts.

[Venetia]

Given the GRE's well-known bias toward white, middle/upper class American students, I wonder if any schools take cultural factors into account in initial filtering...

I'm just curious- how is this the case? As far as I could see it was just (hard) vocab and high school Maths with some nasty trick questions. I didn't grow up in the States, and I didn't find it to be culturally alien. What cultural factors did you find?

[melusine]

I'm just curious- how is this the case? As far as I could see it was just (hard) vocab and high school Maths with some nasty trick questions. I didn't grow up in the States, and I didn't find it to be culturally alien. What cultural factors did you find?

I agree.. I mean, I'm from Russia and have only been in North America for 3 years now (Canada- never been to the States).. And I did fine. In fact, my verbal score is 99% percentile.

If there is any bias, I'd say it's more of an Anglo-Saxon/Victorian lit heritage. But that just means you've happened to read/like those kinds of books (which is my case). I have another friend who's from Benin (Africa), has never set foot in the states either and is anything but middle-class. She also happens to love Jane Austen and aced the GRE.

[APHI224]

I'm just curious- how is this the case? As far as I could see it was just (hard) vocab and high school Maths with some nasty trick questions. I didn't grow up in the States, and I didn't find it to be culturally alien. What cultural factors did you find?

Its the case because white, middle/upper class people are the ones who can afford to spend thousands of dollars in prep classes for the GRE and thus get better scores. Same with the SAT. It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with money... As does a lot of graduate school and life. You have to have the money to apply to these schools that apparently aren't even looking at our applications

[fuzzylogician]

Its the case because white, middle/upper class people are the ones who can afford to spend thousands of dollars in prep classes for the GRE and thus get better scores. Same with the SAT. It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with money... As does a lot of graduate school and life. You have to have the money to apply to these schools that apparently aren't even looking at our applications

I'm international; I probably didn't know 80-90% of the words on the GRE when I started studying, and I've been reading in English since I was 12 (apparently not the right books, haha). I simply made myself flashcards and spent 3 months memorizing them. I got a score in the 97th percentile. The math was high school level, so no need for a course there either. Why waste the money? I don't see why anyone with internet access should be disadvantaged, though I grant you that taking a course could make life easier. But it certainly doesn't entail that whoever can't afford a course can't do just as well or even better.

[coyabean]

I agree.. I mean, I'm from Russia and have only been in North America for 3 years now (Canada- never been to the States).. And I did fine. In fact, my verbal score is 99% percentile.

If there is any bias, I'd say it's more of an Anglo-Saxon/Victorian lit heritage. But that just means you've happened to read/like those kinds of books (which is my case). I have another friend who's from Benin (Africa), has never set foot in the states either and is anything but middle-class. She also happens to love Jane Austen and aced the GRE.

Now we're getting into my area so I apologize, in advance, for going overboard.

There is a prevailing school of thought that suggests that all standardized tests privilege those who have the means, opportunity and access to prepare for the skills tested by such tests like the SAT, GRE, LSAT, etc. The most research has been done for the SAT for many reasons. The second most discussed test seems to be the LSAT. But there is some literature about the GRE.

One of the issues I have with such conclusions is not a disagreement with the fact that minority students, on average, are outperformed by white students, again, on average but that race is, as usual, being conflated poverty. POOR students and those who are born into poor families in poor communities that then funnel them into poor school districts are severely disadvantaged for a test that does not test one's preparedness for graduate school as it does an accumulation of cultural knowledge that trains students to think in "acceptable" ways that can then be segmented and tested for. For instance, expansive vocabulary and critical thinking skills have been tied to early exposure to high-level language in the home and in school. Well, too often poor kids -- the number of which, for reasons too complicated to maybe discuss with someone who is not American, are too often black and brown -- are underexposed to high-level language. Those same children, the most vulnerable, are then placed in the most overburdened schools where issues of safety and order often trump teaching and learning.

When one loses that opportunity to acculturate to sophisticated language processes and critical thinking it is very difficult to "catch up" later in life. Even if a focused, assertive learner from these circumstances does close the gap - and it absolutely happens - poverty comes to visit again when it comes time to prepare for these tests. Children of wealthier parents can afford expensive tutoring and help that is proven to increase competence at these tests.

I do not ever want to communicate that black children cannot learn and these tests are specifically designed to filter them out. That is the kind of talk that leads to discussions the like of "The Bell Curve", among others. It is not race but what race has come to mean in terms of access and mobility and wealth in this country that privileges non-minority students.

And so, yeah.

ETA

numbers and studies and all that sexy quant stuff so no one thinks I'm pulling stuff out of my arse:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED135827&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED135827

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ajgsp1&div=10&id=&page=

And my favorite by Claude Steele: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ywb7r1oOxJYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA401&dq=graduate+school+testing+race&ots=xnx1P0-ejx&sig=m3zHtv47jCraLE3GjQuBxk65WeE#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Edited January 10, 2010 by coyabean

[natofone]

It seems much easier and less expensive to get a good GRE score than any other element of the application.

[Sparky]

Now we're getting into my area so I apologize, in advance, for going overboard.

There is a prevailing school of thought that suggests that all standardized tests privilege those who have the means, opportunity and access to prepare for the skills tested by such tests like the SAT, GRE, LSAT, etc. The most research has been done for the SAT for many reasons. The second most discussed test seems to be the LSAT. But there is some literature about the GRE.

One of the issues I have with such conclusions is not a disagreement with the fact that minority students, on average, are outperformed by white students, again, on average but that race is, as usual, being conflated poverty. POOR students and those who are born into poor families in poor communities that then funnel them into poor school districts are severely disadvantaged for a test that does not test one's preparedness for graduate school as it does an accumulation of cultural knowledge that trains students to think in "acceptable" ways that can then be segmented and tested for.

Oh, gah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound like I was equating race and poverty. And I totally did. How about something like, the 'the biases in the GRE work in favor of white culture and middle/upper class circumstances [not the right word]"?

But, um, I'm working from personal experience TAing a summer program at one of the worst school districts in the country, and the SAT.

The math was high school level, so no need for a course there either. Why waste the money? I don't see why anyone with internet access should be disadvantaged, though I grant you that taking a course could make life easier. But it certainly doesn't entail that whoever can't afford a course can't do just as well or even better.

First of all, some of us in the humanities COMPLETELY FORGOT 80% of the math. ;o) More to the point, I know several people who worked a full time job, a part time job or had heavy family responsibilities, and went to college full time. Studying for the GRE=not so much an option. Also, it's mostly about the reading comprehension sections, from what little I've read about this. They didn't have standardized testing in the Middle Ages.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Sparky

[fuzzylogician]

First of all, some of us in the humanities COMPLETELY FORGOT 80% of the math. ;o) More to the point, I know several people who worked a full time job, a part time job or had heavy family responsibilities, and went to college full time. Studying for the GRE=not so much an option. Also, it's mostly about the reading comprehension sections, from what little I've read about this. They didn't have standardized testing in the Middle Ages.

You only quoted half of my post but let me reply regarding all of it. I'm not sure what the point of your post is supposed to be. Of course people with more responsibilities have less time to devote to studies. BUT to go from there to having no time to study, well, I don't buy that. I studied for three months; the reason for that was that I knew in advance that I would have very little time to devote to studying, and so I stretched it over a longer period of time. I carried my flashcards with me everywhere and took them out whenever I had five free minutes - waiting for the bus to school or work, on the bus, between classes, during lunch, in line for whatever. You can easily get an hour of studying a day that way. It's about planning and putting in the extra effort, and it's harder, but it's far from impossible. Honestly, the time crunch only gets worse when you get to grad school, so if you can't manage your time before you'll have a big problem when you get there. Sorry if this offends you, I am sympathetic to hardships, but I believe in making it work with what you have. Really, if you don't have time to study for a test, how will you have the time to write the SOP or edit the writing sample? I found both tasks to be more time consuming than studying for the GRE or TOEFL.

I also don't think it's mostly about the reading comprehension. For three of the four tasks (=everything except the reading), vocabulary is key. You won't get anywhere if you don't know the words, which honestly I think is most unfair to non-native speakers than to anyone else, if you want my opinion. For the reading part you obviously also need the words but there are some tricks that can ease the task. For the others, not so much.

As for the math, well, too bad for you if you don't remember what you were taught in school. Get a book and study. It seems to me it should be much easier to improve a low quant score than a low verbal score. Not to mention that everybody says that humanities programs don't care about quant anyway.

[Venetia]

Amen, fuzzylogician. I was just going to say, you're applying for grad school, it's not meant to be easy, but you really nailed the point. Yes, I do understand that it's harder for some people than for others, for all the factors listed, but ultimately I don't think the GRE is 'biased'.

[Serric]

I don't think the GRE is biased, either. But how USEFUL is it as a predictor of success in graduate school? Especially since higher scores are selected for.

Same thing for the SAT, btw.

We are standarized tested to death before even beginning to approach the graduate level. How much is enough?

Pretty much this exactly. I've always found it ironic that the rote memorization of words for the GRE is a prerequisite to a degree where you need to think independently. I was an English major for two years, I have a HUGE vocabulary, and I still hadn't heard of ~35% of the words on the GRE's verbal section. A test that you can prepare for in three weeks and get a good score on is NOT an indicator of success of any type--only an ability to binge and purge.

I don't think the GRE is biased, but I do strongly disagree with how commercialized it is. $140 to take a test, $12 to find your scores out over the phone, and--the worst part of all--$20 per school to send your scores out after the first four. Applying is enough of a drain on our resources, finances, and time; we shouldn't have to spend money on a mode of testing that should have ended in high school.

[Venetia]

We are standarized tested to death before even beginning to approach the graduate level. How much is enough?

What I find hilarious is that the standardized testing doesn't even stop at academia- to become a Secret Service Treasury Officer you have to take a standardized test which includes scenarios, witness statements, etc. It actually looked really interesting to study for, but it is frightening that the testing just does not end...

[Pamphilia]

Now we're getting into my area so I apologize, in advance, for going overboard.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, Coyabean. You hit the nail on the head.

Another important factor to consider that parallels the "wealth" issue is parental/familial education level.

I think it is also important to note that of COURSE there are always exceptions to these trends. There are plenty of underprivileged, minority students who ace standardized tests (just as so many posters have established that there are plenty of international students who have done the same). The trends still, undoubtedly, exist. No, the GRE is not designed to keep poorer or minority students out of higher education. Nonetheless, it accomplishes this end.

(Don't even get me started on the prohibitive costs of the exam, besides prep: registering for the test and sending scores. I could go off on this GRE bias issue all day, but we already had another thread on this.)

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pamphilia

[jacib]

Given the GRE's well-known bias toward white, middle/upper class American students, I wonder if any schools take cultural factors into account in initial filtering...

Every school takes cultural factors into account. Especially in terms of GRE score. From what an overly candid professor told me, public schools more than private schools. Minority candidates at some large state universities are allegedly judged more based on their GPA than their GRE. Obviously visible minorities get more of a break than invisible minorities. A lily white cohort simply will not do at most institutions these days, especially because schools want to have possible mentors for the undergraduates they're trying to attract. Blacks and hispanics more than others, but even at my undergraduate university, there was a big controversy because there were very few Asian professors in the social sciences and humanities, and there were many more Asian students interested in those fields.

Having taught several exams, the GRE verbal section is the hardest to study for of all the sections I've encountered (I can't speak to the LSAT). That doesn't mean it can't be studied for, as we all know, but it certainly requires quite a bit of time commitment. That said, I work full time and studied a lot for my GRE using two different books (only one of which I paid for). I stopped going out for the two week immediately before and studied vocabulary like a mad thing. Additionally, I worked on all the math I had forgotten. I had to reteach myself all the rules about triangles more complex than "the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees." I did well because of my studying, even though I haven't taken a math course in more than 5 years. But just because can (and these days, should) be studied for does not mean its free of bias.

It seems much easier and less expensive to get a good GRE score than any other element of the application.

I don't think this is true--I think writing sample and SoP are cheaper to work on and (at least in my field) much more important.

[Pamphilia]

But just because can (and these days, should) be studied for does not mean its free of bias.

Precisely.

The argument irks me for two reasons: If you're white and/or wealthy and do well on a standardized test, you didn't earn and/or deserve it. If you're not, you're an exception to the rule, and shouldn't have done well, because the standarized test is out to get you. Puh-lease.

"Out to get you?" Thanks for quoting me, including the part in which I said, "no the GRE is not designed to keep poorer or minority students out of higher education," and interpreting "NOT DESIGNED" to mean "OUT TO GET YOU." I also purposefully did not write that an underprivileged student who does well on the GRE is an exception to the rule because I think that smacks of essentialism; I wrote that there are exceptions to trends but that, given the numbers, those trends still exist. Take a look at some stats.

Also, as I said, we already had a discussion about this issue in the GRE forum area, and I think if anyone wants to reignite this discussion, it should be done on that thread.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pamphilia

[coyabean]

First of all, if you are excessively underfunded, you don't have to pay to take the GRE.

Secondly, call me a radical, but I am tired of wealthy, well educated parents and students being discriminated against using this argument. I am also tired of minorities being discriminated against using this argument.

Racism is racism.

The argument irks me for two reasons: If you're white and/or wealthy and do well on a standardized test, you didn't earn and/or deserve it. If you're not, you're an exception to the rule, and shouldn't have done well, because the standarized test is out to get you. Puh-lease.

how's this for an explanation: cultural mores lead white, well educated people to want to do well on standarized tests. therefore: THEY STUDY HARDER. same thing for minorities who wish to do well. yes, i am suggesting that a large percentage of minorities do not care about doing well on standarized tests. OMFG, i'm a racist.

Well you know you better than I do so I cannot disagree with your assessment, but I do disagree with the lack of support for your findings.

If we are all trying to attain advanced degrees I think we have a special responsibility to not use our experiences as the Universal and to consider statistical evidence.

The fact remains that there is a wealth of literature to dispute the idea that there is a culture of failure in minority communities. There is more than one longitudinal study that says poor black and brown children (again, I cite a Steele article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/steele.htm) have a GREATER cultural appreciation for academic achievement than their white counterparts.

These types of engagements really reinforce my reasons for going to graduate school. We have here a collection of scientists and humanists that appear ready to easily dismiss the experiences of some people as valid. That is one of many problems I have with higher education. Sure, some people of ALL COLORS do not want to invest in the delayed gratification of learning. That is actually quite American, in my opinion. However, to casually dismiss evidence to the contrary of your personal experience is sloppy scholarship that can be potentially dangerous when you are left relatively unsupervised and omnipotent in a classroom setting with people with life experiences that contradict your "study of one". And this is not directed at one person. I wish it were that easy and that contained. This is systemic and, I think, characteristic of human behavior. We problemitize and marginalize experiences different than our own, and that's when we're progressive and learned! At worse, humans in general and Americans in particular seem inclined to attribute perceived differences as functions of existing frameworks for understanding people -- ethnicity, class, gender, etc. It's easy and lazy.

Let me also point out, though, that women are also outperformed by men. Are we prepared to conclude that there is a gendered cultural norm that disadvantages women? Or, are we more comfortable with an ambiguous de-raced group as being more deserving of both the benefit of doubt and validation of proof? And if so, why are we more comfortable with that than the idea that maybe, just maybe, the very unique way in which race has manifested itself and been acted upon in this country could have similar effects? I think that is as an interesting a question as any.

Edited January 10, 2010 by coyabean