Some admissions committee insights

[Pamphilia]

Pamphilia, my argument was based on the possible interpretations of stats. No need for caps, and no need for instruction on when or where others are allowed to voice their opinions, either. That said, please don't take the fact that I consider your argument ridiculous personally.

I didn't take your disagreement personally. I simply took objection to your misinterpretation of my words. Sorry if the caps upset you, as they were merely for emphasis. And, I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to police opinions. I was only trying to direct this discussion to the previous thread (<<) because this one is now way off its original topic, which deserves its own dedicated discussion. Definitely not telling people not to voice opinions--I believe this is a fascinating and extremely important issue.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pamphilia

[BlueSwedeShoes]

coyabean, was it a qualitative or quantitative study? qualitative studies, as we know as educated people, are not the most reliable. the link you provided was not to a research study at all, but an opinion piece with references.

i was taught in the 9th grade that we are all ethnocentric. being called racist is what i have come to expect when i stand up for the most discriminated against class of people on earth: rich white American males.

Really? Care to elaborate why we, educated people, should not use qualitative studies?

Also please do provide some sources (quantitative studies of course! I would ask no less of an educated person such as yourself) for the claim that the most discriminated against class of people on the whole earth is "rich white American males". I would really love to read more about that...

[coyabean]

coyabean, was it a qualitative or quantitative study? qualitative studies, as we know as educated people, are not the most reliable. the link you provided was not to a research study at all, but an opinion piece with references.

i was taught in the 9th grade that we are all ethnocentric. being called racist is what i have come to expect when i stand up for the most discriminated against class of people on earth: rich white American males.

I am terrified that you think that considering your discipline. What quantitative data goes into English Lit?

But Claude Steele's article is an excellent overview that results from more than a dozen studies he has conducted, that's why I linked it. But for more information please search "Claude Steele", "Stereotype Threat", or see any of the three studies I posted further up.

And no one called you a racist but you.

I just read an interesting pop psych article yesterday about why is Ann Coulter so angry. There was some interesting stuff about anger as a preemptive protective measurement against challenge often and disproportionately used by those who feel entitled in some way. It was in Psychology Today, I think.

And OMG. I just looked back over the progression of this conversation and realized that you aren't serious about engaging in the subject! I have to get better at that or this is going to be a long road.

So ignore it all, but I'll leave it for posterity; internet integrity and all.

Edited January 10, 2010 by coyabean

[Sparky]

Oh, domine dulcis, what did I start?! /groan

The fact remains that there is a wealth of literature to dispute the idea that there is a culture of failure in minority communities.

YES. I hope I did not imply this.

EVERYONE. Please read this article. It's written by a white male; don't feel threatened.

[spozik]

It's interesting that this thread went from a discussion about how admissions committees view applications to another discussion about the GRE. For those of you unfamiliar, we had a similar thread earlier in the GRE/GMAT/etc. forum called "I think the GREs are a deterrent mechanism"--check it out if you're interested in this.

It's also interesting how several people in this thread deny that success on the GRE has a relationship, in general, to one's socio-economic status. There are several studies referencedin this thread that support that line of reasoning, and none that disagrees with it. In that case, I suppose a helium balloon can also be used to disprove the observable theory of gravity: an object with a special property that, in one's personal experience, seems to set the standard for everything.

Many of my applications asked what level of education my parents completed. If I'm not mistaken, the GRE did as well. I'm not happy that it matters, but apparently it does or, at least, someone has a hypothesis that it does. And that hunch is strong enough and seems valid enough that he or she can convince major universities and testing services to include the question in their statistics gathering.

It is odd to me that someone would feel threatened by this claim, even when it is backed up with empirical data. For someone who does, do you think that it implies something about you as an individual? That somehow you didn't "earn" what you have achieved but that it was given to you? I don't think that this is the case, and I don't think that anyone is claiming that this is the case.

[Sparky]

you're spot on. i grew up wealthy, and was very bright. i was even valedictorian of my high school class, which was a pretty elitist school for bright kids. but i always felt that i was an impostor among bright people. i don't know why i felt this way, i just did.

Excuse me while I weep for you. Society discriminates against wealthy people by lowering their self-esteem. Do you understand the arrogance in that statement?

Nah, coyabean is right. Y'all are too conditioned by society to Get It. I'm out, too.

I highly, highly encourage you to read the article I linked in my previous post.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

the fact that gre success has a relationship to socio economic status does not imply causation, is all i'm saying.

furthermore, and to continue with my qualitative opinions,

feeling undeserving of success led me to underachieve in college, which led to a world of hurt. c'est la vie, c'est la vie...

You'll do great in grad school! Good luck!

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

If you're being sarcastic, you have no idea what I've been through just to "stand" in this "room."

If you're not, thanks.

Either way...

you're an anonymous stranger!

And for Sparky, who "gets it" more than I do: congratulations. I always wanted to be able to make such a claim.

Anonymous stranger, you have no idea what most people here have been through - I don't assume we've all led easy lives (though most of us have). I think you, however, feel you have a much higher right to complain about this whole process, which is very arrogant.

Edited January 10, 2010 by ScreamingHairyArmadillo

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Well, the addition of a troll on the gradcafe might spice things up a bit in this waiting time.

[melusine]

Well, the addition of a troll on the gradcafe might spice things up a bit in this waiting time.

haha! Bonum est in quod tendit appetitus.

[alexis]

Not even going to reply to the nonsense of ff's posts...

Anyway, back to the original topic, I'm glad everyone has found the link useful. I agree with others that it's really disturbing how so many programs insist "oh, we consider applications holistically..." when many DO have cut-offs and some grad student is sitting on their couch, automatically eliminating a bunch of people. I'm really starting to think this may be done in part to boast a low acceptance rate (because if they DID post cut-offs, students below that would be discouraged to apply). It got me thinking about one of my programs, who this year supposedly got 1,200+ applicants (it's a large business school, and a third of those are in finance), but they insist they don't have cutoffs. Yeah, right...I highly doubt the adcom is going to go through THAT many applications holistically. It would be nice if they were just honest about their process.

[tinuvielf]

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.

Favorfire: I think I understand the spirit of your comment and am sympathetic toward it in some respect. However, many (if not most) of the underrepresented minorities who take the GRE do in fact care how well they do, and they study quite hard. Yet the fact remains: they often do worse than non-minorities. The reason is that there's more to it than cultural mores' simply leading us to *want* to do better on standardised tests. Those same mores were often inculcated in our parents, who were likely heavy handed in encouraging those behaviours in us when, in our youth, the desire simply wasn’t there. Most minorities didn’t have that, and when perhaps in their teens they "wised up" and came to want it as badly as the rest of us, they had a lot of catching up to do. And their competition wasn't just standing around and giving them the time to do it. During those formative years when our parents (and our teachers, even our environment) were pushing us to study hard and making it very nearly impossible not to, the education we were picking up was not only invaluable, but indispensable to our current ability to present ourselves attractively in all those areas adcoms look at and ultimately to do well in graduate school.

In one of my education classes, I learned about a cognitive instrument known as the “schema,” which refers to the framework of knowledge one possesses. It is constructed over time and acts as a foundation on which other (related) knowledge is built. But it’s more than that too, because it works as sort of a filing cabinet that makes it easier to organise and retrieve data. The long and short of it is that the more information you have, the easier it is to gain more. That’s why people who are coming from behind have a harder time catching up. So while I appreciate where you’re coming from (your comment is based on the nature vs. nurture debate—your argument being from the nurture side), it’s rather unfair to imply that culturally/economically disadvantaged grad-school hopefuls simply aren't studying as hard as we are. Chances are they're having to spend some of that study time learning things that we already learned long before we were the ones pushing ourselves to do well.

As far as GRE scores go and the argument about socio-cultural-economic biases and all that... I think that coaching has perhaps helped for many people, so that the gap between underrepresented minorities’ scores and their counterparts’ seems wider than it perhaps ought to be--all other factors (including the disparity between quality of elementary/secondary education for different demographics) remaining the same. Whether the expensive kind of coaching (Kaplan, etc.) is better than the type you could provide for yourself via a little sleuthing on the internet—that remains to be proven conclusively. I’m somewhat sceptical. I think the difference exists in the quality of the academic foundation upon which such “coaching” is expected to rest. The difference between the outcome of such tests for a person who has had a strong and focused K-thru-Undergraduate academic career and that of a person whose formative (K-UG)years have been less academically focused is akin to the difference between total immersion and classroom study when learning a language. It’s the difference between being bombarded with the relevant knowledge 24/7 and being exposed to it only in school. It makes a HUGE difference. Rote memorisation isn't the only thing that earns anyone their GRE score. It might elevate our scores from 1300 to 1500, but try to think about what got us those first 1300 points. Don't think adcoms don't know or care about what the first 1300 mean.

[coyabean]

i was being sarcastic when i called myself a racist. you implied that i was a racist. twice.

ann coulter is possibly my least favorite person. the fact that you mention her amuses me.

i love that literature is so open to interpretation. i love almost everything about literature, including its (tragic and) increasing irrelevance as a field.

When and where? O_o

[coyabean]

Well, the addition of a troll on the gradcafe might spice things up a bit in this waiting time.

LOL!

I know. And I'm so proud of myself for figuring it out. I'm notoriously naive about these things. I'm all earnest and crap and think others are, too. Thus my note about realizing that this wasn't a real conversation. It's really something I'm working on. The introduction of emotionally-charged words like "racist" and "racism" and the total refusal to engage in logical discourse -- it all hit me. Bam! Troll. YAY! I got it.

[Katzenmusik]

I must say, I truly appreciate those universities which publish detailed information on their web sites about what exactly they are looking for in an applicant: the number of credits that should have been taken, the GPA/GRE cut-offs for master's & PhD programs, the process of selection, and how funding decisions are made. This helps us target our packets to the right programs. The universities which make this information available evidently care more about saving the applicants' time and money than they do about boosting their selectivity ratings.

I find it interesting that many of the most elite schools do not publish this information, or in fact actively dissuade people from thinking that there MIGHT be a GPA or GRE cut-off ("A good GPA will not guarantee entrance, nor will a poor GPA earn automatic rejection..."). In my experience, the programs that do publish this tend to be on the lower end of the prestige ladder.

At first I thought it was ironic that say, Princeton might take a low-GPA applicant while a non-elite school would automatically reject him or her. But on some level, it really is all a numbers game, isn't it?

[coyabean]

Not even going to reply to the nonsense of ff's posts...

Anyway, back to the original topic, I'm glad everyone has found the link useful. I agree with others that it's really disturbing how so many programs insist "oh, we consider applications holistically..." when many DO have cut-offs and some grad student is sitting on their couch, automatically eliminating a bunch of people. I'm really starting to think this may be done in part to boast a low acceptance rate (because if they DID post cut-offs, students below that would be discouraged to apply). It got me thinking about one of my programs, who this year supposedly got 1,200+ applicants (it's a large business school, and a third of those are in finance), but they insist they don't have cutoffs. Yeah, right...I highly doubt the adcom is going to go through THAT many applications holistically. It would be nice if they were just honest about their process.

I think part of the problem is schools playing the ranking yield game. More applications, lower percentage of accepted applicants = prestige. So while they resent all the work it takes to process your app and take your money - as seen, IMO, in the insane way alot of apps systems are designed to make them difficult -- they also need lots of suckers to apply to seem elite.

[natofone]

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.

Well, my point is that the GRE sure costs less than an undergraduate education...especially at the type of undergraduate institution needed to make you competitive at top graduate schools. You only need access to a public library with internet access to prepare for the GRE.

[socialpsych]

While I understand that having good acceptance rate stats can't hurt a school, I question its importance in grad admissions. How many of you actually took acceptance rates into account when deciding where to apply? I sure didn't...in fact I don't even know the rates for any of my schools. Do rankings of PhD programs even take selectivity into account? That said, I didn't even really look at rankings when I applied, but I would be surprised if they were even part of the equation...they just seem totally irrelevant. Grad school prestige is not about being an elite club; it's about the quality of research done in the program, which I imagine can be measured much more reliably using proxies like publication rates.

[tinuvielf]

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.

I think we should also take into consideration the conflation (inbreeding?) of vocabulary at the higher levels of intellectual discourse. Take any French/Russian/German novel and try to read it. Then take a lit theory or philosophy text in the same language and try to read that. As a person exposed to difficult English vocabulary, you'll have an easier time with the high-brow theory and philosophy texts than you will with the basic novel. That's been my experience, anyway. Plus, many everyday words in non-English, European languages (especially Romance and Germanic ones) share the same root as “difficult” English words. I remember hanging out with a married couple, one of whom was an educated American and the other a less-educated Colombian. Once when the American (wife) used the word “castigate,” her husband looked up sharply and expressed his surprise that English “had that word too!” In Spanish “castigar” is just your basic word for “punish”; in English it’s a hardish word.

The point is that educated international students do have a certain advantage regarding many difficult “GRE” words. Educated non-native speakers of any language often bring more to the table than they realise—especially if the languages in question are of the Indo-European family. I use my knowledge of Spanish a lot when I'm trying to learn new words. I find my knowledge of Spanish (in general) and my knowledge of hard English vocab useful when faced with words/phrases in French and Latin (of which I have very very limited knowledge). I also use my knowledge of English when looking at stuff in Greek (with which I’m also almost entirely unfamiliar, but which shows up from time to time in books I read). I'm sure it works from the other end as well. Of course, non-native English speakers are at a disadvantage in such tests—a large disadvantage, and I don't mean to discount that. I just want to point out (among other things) what no one else has apparently noticed: the linguistic commonalities that exist among the vocabulary in use in various languages at the higher levels of academia.

This reasoning would also appear to apply in cases similar to those of your friend who's from Benin, as that country's official language is French.

[LiteratureMajor]

I think part of the problem is schools playing the ranking yield game. More applications, lower percentage of accepted applicants = prestige. So while they resent all the work it takes to process your app and take your money - as seen, IMO, in the insane way alot of apps systems are designed to make them difficult -- they also need lots of suckers to apply to seem elite.

Indeed, coyabean. And this is most certainly game-playing for these wanna-be-elite universities' personal gain... And it pisses me off.

[peterrr]

i wonder what the cut-offs are for top-tier programs or universities. in psychology / business / management programs, for instance, i wonder whether they automatically reject scores below 1400, or whether just screen out applicants that are way, way below the program's average.

[anxiousapplicant]

Do you suppose they add them together and then do the cut off, or look at the verbal and quant separately and then do it? Because I think it would eliminate a lot of potential talent just to add the two numbers together and take the whole score together without seeing if one is really high or not.

[coyabean]

Do you suppose they add them together and then do the cut off, or look at the verbal and quant separately and then do it? Because I think it would eliminate a lot of potential talent just to add the two numbers together and take the whole score together without seeing if one is really high or not.

i've heard of both scenarios. for some schools 1200 seems to be the magic number, regardless of how it is weighted while some highly selective english depts, for example, are looking for a certain percentile in verbal and will disregard the quant.

[alexis]

i wonder what the cut-offs are for top-tier programs or universities. in psychology / business / management programs, for instance, i wonder whether they automatically reject scores below 1400, or whether just screen out applicants that are way, way below the program's average.

I can't imagine a cutoff being that ridiculously high...for one of the top business programs, their AVERAGE accepted GRE is 1400, so for every 1500, you have a 1300 applicant accepted. (I'm sure that's not exact, but you get my point.) It seems 1200 would probably be on the higher end of cutoffs, but who knows. Some programs seem to be more "high GRE" conscious than others.

[a fragrant plant]

I think we should also take into consideration the conflation (inbreeding?) of vocabulary at the higher levels of intellectual discourse. Take any French/Russian/German novel and try to read it. Then take a lit theory or philosophy text in the same language and try to read that. As a person exposed to difficult English vocabulary, you'll have an easier time with the high-brow theory and philosophy texts than you will with the basic novel. That's been my experience, anyway. Plus, many everyday words in non-English, European languages (especially Romance and Germanic ones) share the same root as “difficult” English words. I remember hanging out with a married couple, one of whom was an educated American and the other a less-educated Colombian. Once when the American (wife) used the word “castigate,” her husband looked up sharply and expressed his surprise that English “had that word too!” In Spanish “castigar” is just your basic word for “punish”; in English it’s a hardish word.

The point is that educated international students do have a certain advantage regarding many difficult “GRE” words. Educated non-native speakers of any language often bring more to the table than they realise—especially if the languages in question are of the Indo-European family. I use my knowledge of Spanish a lot when I'm trying to learn new words. I find my knowledge of Spanish (in general) and my knowledge of hard English vocab useful when faced with words/phrases in French and Latin (of which I have very very limited knowledge). I also use my knowledge of English when looking at stuff in Greek (with which I’m also almost entirely unfamiliar, but which shows up from time to time in books I read). I'm sure it works from the other end as well. Of course, non-native English speakers are at a disadvantage in such tests—a large disadvantage, and I don't mean to discount that. I just want to point out (among other things) what no one else has apparently noticed: the linguistic commonalities that exist among the vocabulary in use in various languages at the higher levels of academia.

This reasoning would also appear to apply in cases similar to those of your friend who's from Benin, as that country's official language is French.

Despite the advantages that you observed, still many non-native English speakers are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the GRE. A Japanese/Chinese/Vietnamese/Thai/Tibetan speaker certainly doesn't have the kind of advantages that you elaborated. And after all, the GRE verbal test does not measure a person's intelligence. I wish more people would acknowledge this fact.