Fall 2010 Admission Results

[interista]

Backstreets, are you applying for political theory? I graduated with honors from a top-10 LAC with an 800Q/710V GRE, excellent recommendations and a writing sample which I could probably get published if I tried. I've also been presumably rejected from all 6 schools I have heard back from. So it's not just you. Theory is very competitive (philosophy is even worse), but UVA and Texas are both excellent programs which will give you opportunities for good placement.

[fromark17]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here or sound unsympathetic, but I find it a bit baffling that people who have been accepted to some great programs (Michigan, Texas, UVA...) are complaining. I think it's offensive and disheartening to those who have yet to get in anywhere and are truly worrying. Sure, I've been rejected at a few of my top choices, but I've also got some acceptances and I'm thrilled. We can't all expect to get into our dream school (well, except maybe SuddenlyParanoid). Try to look on the bright side of things.

[card28]

I sympathize with you almost 100%. The flow of offers has stopped for me since Michigan, Rochester, and couple other universities. I have a 3.8 from an Ivy and 1400+ on the GRE with a great SOP (I spent 4 months on it with professors and graduate students giving me feedbacks.) Not to mention I have a great array of recommendation letters from the Ivy. I am getting rejected by some other lower ranked institutions + Stanford and Princeton (Probably).

This is frustrating because I have great great potential advisors at HPS. We will see whether Harvard makes an offer or not, even though it seems unlikely.

four months on your statement? really?

[thatsnotmyname]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here or sound unsympathetic, but I find it a bit baffling that people who have been accepted to some great programs (Michigan, Texas, UVA...) are complaining. I think it's offensive and disheartening to those who have yet to get in anywhere and are truly worrying. Sure, I've been rejected at a few of my top choices, but I've also got some acceptances and I'm thrilled. We can't all expect to get into our dream school (well, except maybe SuddenlyParanoid). Try to look on the bright side of things.

Agreed. To each his/her own, but even if you don't get into the top ten you can still be successful. Life is about defining yourself for you, not for how others perceive you. I am honestly happy to be in at one school, and if I get rejected from everywhere else (yes even Harvard) I won't be upset at all. Then again being accepted at my top choice certainly helps.

To all of those who are still waiting, hang in there! I know it's really tough. I find that when I don't spend time obsessively checking email or thinking about it I hear more news Murphy's Law maybe?

[FairGame]

According to the admissions letter I got, UVA makes funding decisions in April.

Last year's admissions thread isn't terribly helpful in determining what UVA funding has historically looked like (though I know they're thought of as being less generous than others).

Can anybody who's been through this process clue me in? According to the results page, we're -all- awaiting funding decisions there.

On the plus side, now I have something else to be nervous about

[The Realist]

Some feedback on how it looks from my end. We are still going through files now.

• Applications are up a bit from years before. So it's a bit more competitive. We are going to offer slots to well under 5% of our applicants.
• We are not a top-10 department. Since we are realistic about our chances at recruiting the top students, we sometimes don't admit the very best candidates unless we have good reason to think that they'd actually attend.
• Lots of students have a 3.9 GPA and great GREs. Even at a non-top-10 department like ours, those sorts of stats are insufficient to guarantee admission to our program.
• A lot depends on your letter writers. Not that they're famous, but that they write you strong letters. Letters must be glowing. Letters writers can't just say that you're smart or that you got good grades in Intro to whatever, they have to convince us that you'll become a good academic political scientist. There's a lot to read between the lines. Also, letters from political science professors are a lot more credible than letters from other professors (language instructors, literature professors, etc.).
• A lot also depends on your statement. Not because we care so much about what you plan to study, although that matters some for judging whether or not you understand what political science is, but because it tells us how well you can express yourself.
• We honestly are less impressed with where you did your undergrad than we are at how well you did there. I just compared two files, one from a large public university that is decidedly not the best one in its state, and one from an Ivy. The latter student was obviously smart, but the former student had a consistent record of high marks in a range of social science classes and made a much better case that s/he understood political science and would make it in our program. We're going with the former.
• Admissions standards vary a ton across subfields. My department is best at comparative. It's just easier to get into our program for other subfields than it is for comparative

One more thing: I can honestly say that there is a large stochastic component to this process. Lots of wonderful candidates get passed over. We wish it could be otherwise, but it's just the nature of the game. Try not to read too much into it (although I remember how hard that was all those years ago when I got rejected at half the schools where I applied...)

[lev calderon]

Agreed. To each his/her own, but even if you don't get into the top ten you can still be successful. Life is about defining yourself for you, not for how others perceive you. I am honestly happy to be in at one school, and if I get rejected from everywhere else (yes even Harvard) I won't be upset at all. Then again being accepted at my top choice certainly helps.

To all of those who are still waiting, hang in there! I know it's really tough. I find that when I don't spend time obsessively checking email or thinking about it I hear more news Murphy's Law maybe?

Has anyone here been rejected from nyu or princeton? I'm in the theory boat ... 790v 750q 3.85 from a top30 lac and I've been accepted nowhere (I also went to a top 20 law school and want to do public law as well). I'm wondering if adcomms are just not taking in theory folks - maybe because were the biggest risk in terms of placement?

[BayesLives]

I sympathize with you almost 100%. The flow of offers has stopped for me since Michigan, Rochester, and couple other universities. I have a 3.8 from an Ivy and 1400+ on the GRE with a great SOP (I spent 4 months on it with professors and graduate students giving me feedbacks.) Not to mention I have a great array of recommendation letters from the Ivy. I am getting rejected by some other lower ranked institutions + Stanford and Princeton (Probably).

This is frustrating because I have great great potential advisors at HPS. We will see whether Harvard makes an offer or not, even though it seems unlikely.

I go to a college with a top-5 polisci grad program, and I've talked to some of the profs about why/how this happens. They basically said that every year they make a first cut from the 4-500 applicants down to 60. That part is easy. Bad GRE's, fluffy classes, bad statements of purpose. From the last 60 on all of the students are of almost indistinguishable quality. They're all so good on paper, it's impossible to tell which ones will be good in grad school.

So from 60 down to the 20 or so who get in, it's almost all luck. So suppose there were 60 "good" applicants in the entire country, and they each all applied to the 10 best places. If the process is completely random, there will be a few people in the right tail who get in everywhere, and a few in the left who get in nowhere, and people in the middle who get into some random proportion of the schools.

Of course the process isn't entirely random (I'm sure there really are some applicants who get in everywhere because they are head and shoulders above everyone else, but I doubt there are many people like that). But that is the main explanation for why things seem somewhat random...it's because they are! So people who get in everywhere shouldn't get too high on themselves, and people who get in nowhere shouldn't get too low on themselves.

[Cantabrigian]

Let's not pretend that there are not other things at work here, especially in theory. Political science can be very "political." In almost all of the subfields, opposing methodological camps feel like they must invest in people who will continue to hold up their "brand." I'm at Cambridge right now, believe me, it's true...

BTW Any news on ND or what?

[It'sgonnabeme]

I go to a college with a top-5 polisci grad program, and I've talked to some of the profs about why/how this happens. They basically said that every year they make a first cut from the 4-500 applicants down to 60. That part is easy. Bad GRE's, fluffy classes, bad statements of purpose. From the last 60 on all of the students are of almost indistinguishable quality. They're all so good on paper, it's impossible to tell which ones will be good in grad school.

So from 60 down to the 20 or so who get in, it's almost all luck. So suppose there were 60 "good" applicants in the entire country, and they each all applied to the 10 best places. If the process is completely random, there will be a few people in the right tail who get in everywhere, and a few in the left who get in nowhere, and people in the middle who get into some random proportion of the schools.

Of course the process isn't entirely random (I'm sure there really are some applicants who get in everywhere because they are head and shoulders above everyone else, but I doubt there are many people like that). But that is the main explanation for why things seem somewhat random...it's because they are! So people who get in everywhere shouldn't get too high on themselves, and people who get in nowhere shouldn't get too low on themselves.

Nice post.

Edited February 17, 2010 by It'sgonnabeme

[Ziz]

Nice post.

Yes, quite heartening actually.

[CrimsonBlue]

I go to a college with a top-5 polisci grad program, and I've talked to some of the profs about why/how this happens. They basically said that every year they make a first cut from the 4-500 applicants down to 60. That part is easy. Bad GRE's, fluffy classes, bad statements of purpose. From the last 60 on all of the students are of almost indistinguishable quality. They're all so good on paper, it's impossible to tell which ones will be good in grad school.

So from 60 down to the 20 or so who get in, it's almost all luck. So suppose there were 60 "good" applicants in the entire country, and they each all applied to the 10 best places. If the process is completely random, there will be a few people in the right tail who get in everywhere, and a few in the left who get in nowhere, and people in the middle who get into some random proportion of the schools.

Of course the process isn't entirely random (I'm sure there really are some applicants who get in everywhere because they are head and shoulders above everyone else, but I doubt there are many people like that). But that is the main explanation for why things seem somewhat random...it's because they are! So people who get in everywhere shouldn't get too high on themselves, and people who get in nowhere shouldn't get too low on themselves.

Thanks a lot for this. It is indeed random to a certain extent.

[Concentration]

Let's not pretend that there are not other things at work here, especially in theory. Political science can be very "political." In almost all of the subfields, opposing methodological camps feel like they must invest in people who will continue to hold up their "brand." I'm at Cambridge right now, believe me, it's true...

BTW Any news on ND or what?

I was told yesterday the admissions process is ongoing, but then a small squirt of people were admitted yesterday afternoon (well, really only one I know of, but it was purportedly a form email). So I don't know what to believe. We are on tenterhooks.

[thatsnotmyname]

Has anyone here been rejected from nyu or princeton? I'm in the theory boat ... 790v 750q 3.85 from a top30 lac and I've been accepted nowhere (I also went to a top 20 law school and want to do public law as well). I'm wondering if adcomms are just not taking in theory folks - maybe because were the biggest risk in terms of placement?

I have not been official rejected from NYU or Princeton, all though in all likelihood I didn't make the cut. I don't think any of these schools have sent out official rejections, so there may be hope for you! Theory is tough, but hopefully your public law interest will balance that out and get you in at one of your top choices.

[Concentration]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here or sound unsympathetic, but I find it a bit baffling that people who have been accepted to some great programs (Michigan, Texas, UVA...) are complaining. I think it's offensive and disheartening to those who have yet to get in anywhere and are truly worrying. Sure, I've been rejected at a few of my top choices, but I've also got some acceptances and I'm thrilled. We can't all expect to get into our dream school (well, except maybe SuddenlyParanoid). Try to look on the bright side of things.

Hear, hear. I have placed on ignore one poster, who despite getting into a top ten program, has become insufferable in his/her melancholy. I can only imagine what it will be like to be in the cohort with some folks when they receive their first article rejection.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Concentration

[Rory]

This admissions game has been far more emotionally trying that I had imagined. I think I went into this process with a really healthy attitude - I only applied to schools I'd be happy at, and recognized that I needed one, just one acceptance - if the rest were rejections, it didn't matter. On top of it, I have a really solid back-up "life plan" that, while not my first choice, I'd be perfectly happy with.

It really is the waiting period that has started to degrade my mental health - I've got one rejection (no biggie) and at least one other assumed rejection - these are not the problem, its the silence that is the problem. If I'm not going to be going into a PhD program this coming fall, I just want to know so I can start making other plans and get on with my life.

OK, end rant. I will not post like this again.

[ladedodaday]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here or sound unsympathetic, but I find it a bit baffling that people who have been accepted to some great programs (Michigan, Texas, UVA...) are complaining. I think it's offensive and disheartening to those who have yet to get in anywhere and are truly worrying. Sure, I've been rejected at a few of my top choices, but I've also got some acceptances and I'm thrilled. We can't all expect to get into our dream school (well, except maybe SuddenlyParanoid). Try to look on the bright side of things.

I concur. Don't people only apply to schools where they can see themselves succeed? If you have gotten in anywhere, be happy! You chose to apply there so it must be a good place for you. There are plenty of people who want that spot, and many of them deserve it as much as you.

[betteryear]

So people who get in everywhere shouldn't get too high on themselves, and people who get in nowhere shouldn't get too low on themselves.

sadly what you end up doing for the rest of your life depending on these subtle distinctions between where you end up being within that top 60.

[gsams]

sadly what you end up doing for the rest of your life depending on these subtle distinctions between where you end up being within that top 60.

But life is what you make of it! Life hands you cards, it is what you DO with them that counts. Will I be upset if I don't get accepted? Hellz yeah. But some other door will open. Nothing is the end of the world.

[curufinwe]

But life is what you make of it! Life hands you cards, it is what you DO with them that counts. Will I be upset if I don't get accepted? Hellz yeah. But some other door will open. Nothing is the end of the world.

Hehe, is to think of A. Wendt when reading this post a sign of mental disorder?

[Yes]

Hehe, is to think of A. Wendt when reading this post a sign of mental disorder?

[Shere Khan]

This admissions game has been far more emotionally trying that I had imagined. I think I went into this process with a really healthy attitude - I only applied to schools I'd be happy at, and recognized that I needed one, just one acceptance - if the rest were rejections, it didn't matter. On top of it, I have a really solid back-up "life plan" that, while not my first choice, I'd be perfectly happy with.

It really is the waiting period that has started to degrade my mental health - I've got one rejection (no biggie) and at least one other assumed rejection - these are not the problem, its the silence that is the problem. If I'm not going to be going into a PhD program this coming fall, I just want to know so I can start making other plans and get on with my life.

OK, end rant. I will not post like this again.

I tried to fight the strain simply by applying for jobs in the meantime - with the result that I'll now have to turn down an internship with our secret service . Given the reputation of that organization, not a big loss, I guess. I'm getting too old for internships anyway.

[gsams]

Right now, I feel like we all have mental disorders. I have been dealing with killer migraines for two weeks. I am sure the stress from admission is not helping. I wish schools would get back to me. I see the neuro tomorrow. He is probably going to wonder why I am stressed. All I am doing is writing my thesis, tutoring, and taking basketball for one credit. Normally, I am taking 17 credits, volunteering 10 hours a week, working 20 hours a week, and still managing fine. I don't think it is all just stress, but I am not sure he will understand it at all.

[betteryear]

gsams, on 17 February 2010 - 09:30 PM, said:But life is what you make of it! Life hands you cards, it is what you DO with them that counts. Will I be upset if I don't get accepted? Hellz yeah. But some other door will open. Nothing is the end of the world.

Hehe, is to think of A. Wendt when reading this post a sign of mental disorder?

yes, happiness is all about managing expectations. sooner or later, we will all be satisfied with our respective results and think that this was the best for us. havent you heard the story of the lottery winner and the guy who lost his leg - who became just as happy with their life as before the events after a certain amount of time had passed.

[fromark17]

yes, happiness is all about managing expectations. sooner or later, we will all be satisfied with our respective results and think that this was the best for us. havent you heard the story of the lottery winner and the guy who lost his leg - who became just as happy with their life as before the events after a certain amount of time had passed.

Happiness is also relative. If you really think about it, we are all extremely lucky to even be in this position. The possibility of getting a PhD would be an impossibility for most people in the world; they never had half the opportunities or support we did. You have to make the most with what you're given and keep everything in perspective. Don't assume that if you don't do precisely what you pictured for yourself happiness will elude you.