Fall 2017 Acceptances/Interviews/Rejections Thread

[WorldPeaceMaker2010]

14 minutes ago, ruilinch said:

In this case, wish for the best then!

Oh I am, every finger is crossed to get off the waitlist!

[NanaSoc]

13 hours ago, ruilinch said:

waitlisted by Boston College. They are nice enough to let me know so I guess it's better than none, though the disappointment is deeply felt no matter what.

Hello I'm wait listed as well. Are you going to attend the visitation day? 

[ruilinch]

4 hours ago, NanaSoc said:

Hello I'm wait listed as well. Are you going to attend the visitation day? 

I might not be able to. It sounds fun and well planned though. 

[meowcow]

12 hours ago, socnewbie said:

I have yet to hear from them, as well. I'm guessing they send their rejections much later?

Based on results board from last year, they sent out rejections around March 4 I think.

[cabraloca]

On 25/2/2017 at 1:28 AM, OccasionallyCaffeinated said:

I applied to 8 top-20 schools and didn't get into a single one, or waitlisted. I have a coauthored pub and worked at a big well known demography center. I can see (from my lay person acceptance-less POV) points of improvement, like producing a much better writing sample and doing better on my quant area of the GRE (though got above 90 for everything else).

I cried yesterday, because I'm a very neurotic future forward, long term thinker, and getting rejected from grad school was like... a shattered dream. Who am i, if not a future Dr./life long bookworm/baby sociologist?? As corny and pretentious as it sounds, academia was really important to me, my identity and my future. It's been hard as a first generation college student, to not read my rejections as a sign that: you're not only under-qualified, you can't even sell yourself or dress yourself up pretty on paper. 

At the same time, I recognize that academia is also one of the least meritocratic fields out there (let's be honest, entry level investment banking may be more diverse nowadays  -_-), kids from PhD families are most likely to get into these programs, the type of stuff you do in academia you can get do in many other jobs, and the growth we have in industry and other fields is bigger and more likely.

Sad truth is: I'm more likely to land a $70,000 entry level marketing gig right now (srsly) than get into Columbia, and I'm not sure what message to take from that. What I can glean is that I'm not quite sure this is a race I want to keep running in. 

I'm gonna swim around the corporate world for a bit (I'm 24 ATM) and if by my late 20s I start getting that urge to write a literature review, I'll reconsider reapplying. 

This is why I think you shouldn't feel bad. We already know it's not based on merit. My friends who have gone on to do their MA's or PhD's all have two PhD parents who worked at our home University, who knew all the professors since they were in their twenties, so they were always getting the better grades, better jobs, better advisors and, therefore, better LORs. I'm not saying they aren't smart, but I think I'd be at that level too if I had that access to books and critical scientific thinking from a young age.

There is a million reasons why graduate schools don't accept students: funding priorities, class diversity.... maybe they don't have someone working on your academic interests right now and aren't able to provide that for you, maybe there is no funding for someone with your specific profile, or maybe... it's just the elitist US education system spitting you out. And I don't think we should be hurt when THE SYSTEM is at work. Maybe lets be joyful instead that we're not getting sucked in right away, before we have time to create a critique of our own.

Also, this:

 

[ruilinch]

22 minutes ago, cabraloca said:

This is why I think you shouldn't feel bad. We already know it's not based on merit. My friends who have gone on to do their MA's or PhD's all have two PhD parents who worked at our home University, who knew all the professors since they were in their twenties, so they were always getting the better grades, better jobs, better advisors and, therefore, better LORs. I'm not saying they aren't smart, but I think I'd be at that level too if I had that access to books and critical scientific thinking from a young age.

There is a million reasons why graduate schools don't accept students: funding priorities, class diversity.... maybe they don't have someone working on your academic interests right now and aren't able to provide that for you, maybe there is no funding for someone with your specific profile, or maybe... it's just the elitist US education system spitting you out. And I don't think we should be hurt when THE SYSTEM is at work. Maybe lets be joyful instead that we're not getting sucked in right away, before we have time to create a critique of our own.

Also, this:

 

I resonated profoundly with @OccasionallyCaffeinated and found @cabraloca having made a really good case. I, too, have started to question the importance of being in the academia. I started to look for jobs after I received four rejections in one day's time. The first step was hard, devastating actually since I have prepared so long for an academic career and I was so sure that this is what I want and all that I have been and will be talking about. But the moment I started to look for jobs, I found amazingly different responses from the industry. I got more positive feedbacks than I have ever got from publication. The prospects are also much clearer. I will definitely not be spending five years in  a Top 50 program and still having to worry about landing a job somewhere. Five years in the industry will give me expertise and experience and will almost certainly be financially rewarding. Should I find research interesting, it is also more likely for me to land on a top PhD program then. 

With these in mind, I just don't see why not. People say it's nicer to be in schools. You're treated more gently and your talents are truly valued. If so, why do I have such different experience? Why do I feel so relieved, more valued than ever and with such hopes and prospects towards my future now than ever? Have I got it all wrong in the past? Maybe I'm not suitable for academia after all. 

When I watch La La Land, I feel so sad. I don't know if I should dream differently. If your dream failed and you found something else, should you just change? If so, what is dream anyway...

[ndrun]

12 minutes ago, ruilinch said:

I resonated profoundly with @OccasionallyCaffeinated and found @cabraloca having made a really good case. I, too, have started to question the importance of being in the academia. I started to look for jobs after I received four rejections in one day's time. The first step was hard, devastating actually since I have prepared so long for an academic career and I was so sure that this is what I want and all that I have been and will be talking about. But the moment I started to look for jobs, I found amazingly different responses from the industry. I got more positive feedbacks than I have ever got from publication. The prospects are also much clearer. I will definitely not be spending five years in  a Top 50 program and still having to worry about landing a job somewhere. Five years in the industry will give me expertise and experience and will almost certainly be financially rewarding. Should I find research interesting, it is also more likely for me to land on a top PhD program then. 

With these in mind, I just don't see why not. People say it's nicer to be in schools. You're treated more gently and your talents are truly valued. If so, why do I have such different experience? Why do I feel so relieved, more valued than ever and with such hopes and prospects towards my future now than ever? Have I got it all wrong in the past? Maybe I'm not suitable for academia after all. 

When I watch La La Land, I feel so sad. I don't know if I should dream differently. If your dream failed and you found something else, should you just change? If so, what is dream anyway...

The sentiments of these posts is ringing true to me now too. I only applied to 6 Soc Ph.D. programs and really focused on crafting strong SOPs and I've been accepted to none (1 rejection, 2 presumed rejections, 3 waitlists). It's really become apparent just how arbitrary this process can be. What really separates an accepted applicant from a waitlisted or even some rejected ones? I wish departments had the resources/time to be able to give some feedback so I knew what I could have done better because everything in my applications (GRE scores, GPA, Bachelors/Masters programs, research experience, interview performance, SOP) appear quite good. At least, I've gotten overwhelmingly positive feedback for it all. I just wish I knew which part was not good enough. I still have some hope for the three amazing schools I'm waitlisted at but I am devastated at the prospect of not getting any offers. I'm not sure I'd ever want to go through this process again should my nightmare come true. I'm wondering how second and third cycle applicants are able to find it in themselves to do this all over again?

[WorldPeaceMaker2010]

I think a key point alot of people here haven't touched on is actually the over saturation of "good candidates". It's not enough to simply look good on paper. I see many people saying they have everything... great gres, letters of rec, POI connections, GPS, and the list goes on. The thing is you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be rejected. There isn't some magic checklist that if you can cross those items off your in.... there are basically just bottom thresholds each school looks at. 

 

The truth of the matter is that there are simply too few open slots in comparison with the number of "good" candidates applying. It's like this is other oversaturated industries (lawyers are currently having this issue too). It's highly competitive. Not everyone can be offered a spot because there are just far too many of us. It sucks so bad when that person is you who doesn't get in, but on the other hand it also does make a certain amount of sense that there should be a small amount of people accepted every year and not simply everyone who applies and checks the boxes. There would be not enough funding to go around, let alone jobs after graduation. Getting a PhD is the top of the line education-wise, so naturally not everyone who just wants to do it is going to be able to. It's just the nature of any type of elite job or training. I personally don't think people get rejected and accepted is necessarily arbitrary.... more just frustrating. Supply and demand are pretty logical reasons for rejections. And in terms of why someone over another, I think to us on the surface it's easy to think it makes no sense, but what I've learned from talking to a few people on these selection committees is there's pretty much always a reason. Many times it's about fit and a professor's own ability to connect with the applicant's research or personality. Just because you don't know the reason doens't make it necessarily arbitrary , it's more likely that you just don't know what the reason is, but it does exist. I personally don't think a POI's feeling of a connection with certain research/students over others is arbitrary. It's what is going to led to a productive PhD team and success in the program. I don't want someone to take me just because I look good on paper if they don't feel like they can work with me, or arent actually engaged with my research.

 

[AmityDuPeuple]

1 hour ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I think a key point alot of people here haven't touched on is actually the over saturation of "good candidates". It's not enough to simply look good on paper. I see many people saying they have everything... great gres, letters of rec, POI connections, GPS, and the list goes on. The thing is you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be rejected. There isn't some magic checklist that if you can cross those items off your in.... there are basically just bottom thresholds each school looks at. 

 

The truth of the matter is that there are simply too few open slots in comparison with the number of "good" candidates applying. It's like this is other oversaturated industries (lawyers are currently having this issue too). It's highly competitive. Not everyone can be offered a spot because there are just far too many of us. It sucks so bad when that person is you who doesn't get in, but on the other hand it also does make a certain amount of sense that there should be a small amount of people accepted every year and not simply everyone who applies and checks the boxes. There would be not enough funding to go around, let alone jobs after graduation. Getting a PhD is the top of the line education-wise, so naturally not everyone who just wants to do it is going to be able to. It's just the nature of any type of elite job or training. I personally don't think people get rejected and accepted is necessarily arbitrary.... more just frustrating. Supply and demand are pretty logical reasons for rejections. And in terms of why someone over another, I think to us on the surface it's easy to think it makes no sense, but what I've learned from talking to a few people on these selection committees is there's pretty much always a reason. Many times it's about fit and a professor's own ability to connect with the applicant's research or personality. Just because you don't know the reason doens't make it necessarily arbitrary , it's more likely that you just don't know what the reason is, but it does exist. I personally don't think a POI's feeling of a connection with certain research/students over others is arbitrary. It's what is going to led to a productive PhD team and success in the program. I don't want someone to take me just because I look good on paper if they don't feel like they can work with me, or arent actually engaged with my research.

 

I completely agree. It is definitely more complicated than we would hope. And while it doesn't boil down to merit in every instance, in some it just might. 

I am a first generation, low-income student (among other underrepresented populations). If I go by some of the afore mentioned arguments, I wouldn't be pursuing my MA and about to pursue a PhD. The ironic thing is I have been told by some that the only reason I am pursuing advanced degrees is because I am a charity case that helps programs meet diversity requirements/goals. I am unable and unwilling to believe that I am only here to boost diversity. So while merit may not be everything, it has to count for something.

[WorldPeaceMaker2010]

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!

(thanks to whoever declined!)

[Illusio80]

Quite happily claiming a "hold" (waitlist) at Notre Dame.  Finally, some halfway positive news!

[ndrun]

1 hour ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!

(thanks to whoever declined!)

Congrats! This gives me hope that getting off a waitlist is possible!

Edited March 1, 2017 by ndrun

[limonchello]

1 hour ago, Illusio80 said:

Quite happily claiming a "hold" (waitlist) at Notre Dame.  Finally, some halfway positive news!

I received the same email today, it feels like an achievement just being waitlisted (it was my 'reach' school)!

[Anarchist]

2 hours ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!

(thanks to whoever declined!)

Great news! Congratulation!

[WorldPeaceMaker2010]

11 minutes ago, Anarchist said:

Great news! Congratulation!

Thanks!

 

1 hour ago, ndrun said:

Congrats! This gives me hope that getting off a waitlist is possible!

It's very possible if the wait list isn't super long!

 

 

 

I also had an incredible visit with Northeastern this week, won't know if they're accepting though for another week or two. The fit for me there is really amazing. 

This is going to end up being a very hard choice for me if I get an offer there too. 

[THS]

11 hours ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I think a key point alot of people here haven't touched on is actually the over saturation of "good candidates". It's not enough to simply look good on paper. I see many people saying they have everything... great gres, letters of rec, POI connections, GPS, and the list goes on. The thing is you don't actually have to do anything wrong to be rejected. There isn't some magic checklist that if you can cross those items off your in.... there are basically just bottom thresholds each school looks at. 

 

The truth of the matter is that there are simply too few open slots in comparison with the number of "good" candidates applying. It's like this is other oversaturated industries (lawyers are currently having this issue too). It's highly competitive. Not everyone can be offered a spot because there are just far too many of us. It sucks so bad when that person is you who doesn't get in, but on the other hand it also does make a certain amount of sense that there should be a small amount of people accepted every year and not simply everyone who applies and checks the boxes. There would be not enough funding to go around, let alone jobs after graduation. Getting a PhD is the top of the line education-wise, so naturally not everyone who just wants to do it is going to be able to. It's just the nature of any type of elite job or training. I personally don't think people get rejected and accepted is necessarily arbitrary.... more just frustrating. Supply and demand are pretty logical reasons for rejections. And in terms of why someone over another, I think to us on the surface it's easy to think it makes no sense, but what I've learned from talking to a few people on these selection committees is there's pretty much always a reason. Many times it's about fit and a professor's own ability to connect with the applicant's research or personality. Just because you don't know the reason doens't make it necessarily arbitrary , it's more likely that you just don't know what the reason is, but it does exist. I personally don't think a POI's feeling of a connection with certain research/students over others is arbitrary. It's what is going to led to a productive PhD team and success in the program. I don't want someone to take me just because I look good on paper if they don't feel like they can work with me, or arent actually engaged with my research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I almost down voted this and stopped.  I agree with a lot of points until the end.  I think you are SO so wrong about what lets some people float to the top.  No one knows your personality unless you've met them (social capital which goes back to the first poster's point about people who have ins getting into programs and to be fair we've seen evidence of this how many times just on this board?).  Social capital is essential to being accepted.  It is why I am now going to all the soc conferences that I can afford this year (papers/posters...or just attending), it is why I am starting to try and send out a few e-mails now.  It isn't "looking good on paper", those of us who look good on paper are just a great and sometimes better than those admitted; we are successful people in what we study.  I now have 2 waitlists but after 2 weeks of applying 3 job interviews (I applied to 8 government and nonprofit jobs)...I can literally do the research that I am applying to a PHD to do/to refine.    

My point here is that the people in our field tend to ignore the various ways that their habitus has lended to their ability to be at the place they are in their lives.  I don't know your story- but I can say this.  Just like economic success, a certain level of luck plays into this process.  You'll have various forms of social, cultural and economic capital at your disposal in applying to programs.  Social will give you a little boost at certain departments (you have a friend there, your advisor went there, w/e), cultural will give you the know into what they are looking for (you went to a top 20 school and could ask, have parents who are PHDs, statistically you'll score higher on the GRE if your parents had degrees) where you did your BA or MA fits here too- that's a huge one, your economic will allow you to apply to multiple schools, to take (and retake) the GRE, to do GRE prep.  And these are just examples off the top of my head- this is all complicated when you add income/gender/ethnicity to the above.

Getting into a PHD is the same as the rest of life and it is entirely stacked against people who are minorities and from lower incomes- groups who are under represented....we can see this by the fact that minority groups are not represented equitably in higher ed.  I think it is sad that somone told another poster that she/he was only getting in because they are low income.  No, instead it is something we can see empiracally reflected in studies of PHD admissions and simply in the faces of teachers we've had.  I will defend my MA on Friday and I can say I have never had a female, hispanic professor.  Never, in my entire academic career has someone who looked like me taught a class I took.  

I just finished my MA research focusing on class and class creation in the United States and I feel like it is so applicable to everything (mostly American politics right now), but reading your post made me think about similar things we hear all the time from people who feel like they worked hard and earned it.  I know you worked hard and have earned all your accomplishments (don't get me wrong).  That isn't my point.  My point is that your hard work has been noticed either by luck or by your habitus (and it is a toss up for which is the case).  Either way, continue to kick butt and best of luck to you.  And for those of you who haven't gotten in this year, keep trying (I will) because to some extent it is just a toss up but the only way they win is if you give up.

Edited March 2, 2017 by montanem

[Aucitronvert]

6 hours ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!

(thanks to whoever declined!)

I'm so happy for you! 

[WorldPeaceMaker2010]

6 hours ago, montanem said:

I almost down voted this and stopped.  I agree with a lot of points until the end.  I think you are SO so wrong about what lets some people float to the top.  No one knows your personality unless you've met them (social capital which goes back to the first poster's point about people who have ins getting into programs and to be fair we've seen evidence of this how many times just on this board?).  Social capital is essential to being accepted.  It is why I am now going to all the soc conferences that I can afford this year (papers/posters...or just attending), it is why I am starting to try and send out a few e-mails now.  It isn't "looking good on paper", those of us who look good on paper are just a great and sometimes better than those admitted; we are successful people in what we study.  I now have 2 waitlists but after 2 weeks of applying 3 job interviews (I applied to 8 government and nonprofit jobs)...I can literally do the research that I am applying to a PHD to do/to refine.    

My point here is that the people in our field tend to ignore the various ways that their habitus has lended to their ability to be at the place they are in their lives.  I don't know your story- but I can say this.  Just like economic success, a certain level of luck plays into this process.  You'll have various forms of social, cultural and economic capital at your disposal in applying to programs.  Social will give you a little boost at certain departments (you have a friend there, your advisor went there, w/e), cultural will give you the know into what they are looking for (you went to a top 20 school and could ask, have parents who are PHDs, statistically you'll score higher on the GRE if your parents had degrees) where you did your BA or MA fits here too- that's a huge one, your economic will allow you to apply to multiple schools, to take (and retake) the GRE, to do GRE prep.  And these are just examples off the top of my head- this is all complicated when you add income/gender/ethnicity to the above.

Getting into a PHD is the same as the rest of life and it is entirely stacked against people who are minorities and from lower incomes- groups who are under represented....we can see this by the fact that minority groups are not represented equitably in higher ed.  I think it is sad that somone told another poster that she/he was only getting in because they are low income.  No, instead it is something we can see empiracally reflected in studies of PHD admissions and simply in the faces of teachers we've had.  I will defend my MA on Friday and I can say I have never had a female, hispanic professor.  Never, in my entire academic career has someone who looked like me taught a class I took.  

I just finished my MA research focusing on class and class creation in the United States and I feel like it is so applicable to everything (mostly American politics right now), but reading your post made me think about similar things we hear all the time from people who feel like they worked hard and earned it.  I know you worked hard and have earned all your accomplishments (don't get me wrong).  That isn't my point.  My point is that your hard work has been noticed either by luck or by your habitus (and it is a toss up for which is the case).  Either way, continue to kick butt and best of luck to you.  And for those of you who haven't gotten in this year, keep trying (I will) because to some extent it is just a toss up but the only way they win is if you give up.

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 

If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.

Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 

A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 

 

Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.

 

it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.

As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.

* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by WorldPeaceMaker2010

[Jessica80]

16 hours ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I have been taken off the waitlist at Umass Amherst and offered a fully funded place!

(thanks to whoever declined!)

Congratulations! I'm thrilled for you!

[sociologykween]

Any idea when Hopkins is going to send out definite decisions? I have been accepted to a program at NYU and I must accept or reject the offer by March 20th but I am still waiting on JHU which I would prefer over NYU. Should I contact the admissions office and ask about the decision or would that come off too pushy? I would not want them to have a bad first impression of me!

[demog]

Have any of those waitlisted at UW-Seattle asked for details on the waitlist (e.g. is it ranked? is it short?)? I know their recruitment is this weekend so I was thinking there might be some news soon. Thanks in advance for any info.

[Jessica80]

37 minutes ago, sociologykween said:

Any idea when Hopkins is going to send out definite decisions? I have been accepted to a program at NYU and I must accept or reject the offer by March 20th but I am still waiting on JHU which I would prefer over NYU. Should I contact the admissions office and ask about the decision or would that come off too pushy? I would not want them to have a bad first impression of me!

I would contact them, esp. since you've got the time pressure. I received an email from Beverly Silver on 2/15 notifying me that the department had sent out its 4 acceptances and I was on the list of alternates. This occurred after I had emailed Linda Burkhardt on 2/8 asking for an approximate timeline and she replied, "Our committee is in the process of reviewing the applicants. We hope to have some decisions by the end of this month." 

Congrats on your NYU acceptance!

[AmityDuPeuple]

2 hours ago, sociologykween said:

Any idea when Hopkins is going to send out definite decisions? I have been accepted to a program at NYU and I must accept or reject the offer by March 20th but I am still waiting on JHU which I would prefer over NYU. Should I contact the admissions office and ask about the decision or would that come off too pushy? I would not want them to have a bad first impression of me!

Why such a time pressure? April 15th is generally the universal deadline. I would be wary of going anywhere that does not give you enough time to make a fully informed decision. It would seem to me that it wouldn't bode well for the department/university environment being supportive and conducive to you doing your best as a grad student. 

[THS]

8 hours ago, WorldPeaceMaker2010 said:

I am not saying at all that there aren't economic and social stratification disadvantageous at play with some people. I think in our line of work we've all seen that there isn't class equality in most aspects of life. However, that actually just supports what I was saying about the process not being quite that arbitrary. I think you are confusing the difference between the process being unfair and arbitrary. I would agree it isn't a completely fair one by any means, but that doesn't make the selection arbitrary automatically. Whether we like it or not, we are all different in some regards (be it a single GRE point, better LORs, or even internships we've had). Two applications are NEVER exactly the same, even if the scores are... what you write about yourself, other people write about you, and the experiences on your resume will never be the exact same combination as someone else applying. There will be some differences, which is where what I'm saying about personality and research area really become important when a committee picks someone over another. 

If you've done a good job on your SoP, the committee will very much be able to get to know you alittle through it. What you say about them not knowing you at all really isn't true if you write well. That's one of the points of a good SoP... to have your personality shine through, and to really specify the exact nuances of the research you want to do. Like I said earlier, I've talked to multiple people at very different schools about the why one over another question, and all of them have said once the extremely low scoring applicants have been weeded out, it nearly always comes down to the SoP (or increasingly an interview that quite a few schools have started holding with top choices) in terms of the feeling of connection the relevant faculty feels towards the personality (personal anecdotes, and general attitude of the letter) of the applicant and their interest in the research they're proposing. Often being excited about the research someone wants to do will trump small GPA and GRE differences.

Have you ever actually seen the reasoning write-ups most departments have to give to the graduate school on why they chose the people they did? Alot of dept. have to justify each and every choice they make the graduate admissions...and defend their choice of why that person over the rest. I've worked in this office before and processed these.... a vast majority of them is actually a POI being really really excited about the research the student wants to do. Either a) because it mirrors pretty close with the POI's current work, b )it's something related to their field but they actually hadn't been thinking of doing, or c) it's not their current work, but it's actually in a research vien they had been planning to go down in the next few years.  No matter which it is there, it boils down to someone in the dept. being really enthusiastic about that applicant because of their research. Very very rarely did we ever have the defense of choice be actually about scores, or publications. 

A POI being excited about someone's proposed research isn't arbitrary... it's actually something that in many cases can be very much predicted based on fit. This is why (politely) reaching out to people before you apply to see if they have interest in what you do is important, as is actually reading alot of work by POIs before you apply. You can often tell from their responses and by what they themselves are publishing and getting grant money for, if your research fits in well. Having a really good fit is valued by most dept. because it's a pretty good indicator on how successful and happy you'll be there. If no one there is really into your research it's going to be difficult to get good mentorship. It's also not normally good for a dept. to "force" a student on a POI if the POI isn't actually that intrested in the student... it just leads to neglect and resentment towards the student. None of that is conductive to either finishing the program, or good job placement after (thus increasing the reputation of the program)... so many departments let POI have a final say rather than just being like we've selected the top x% of students based on GRE for example. 

 

Being accepted or rejected unless you have really abysmal scores, comes down mostly to things it's hard for us as applicants to see... which makes it easy for people to claim it's senseless and arbitrary because they only see other people's scores in comparison to their own... theyre not often seeing LoR or SoP (or how much a POI identified with the proposed research). However, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean these aspects aren't there. Just because your capable of research (which most PhD applicants are...) doesn't mean it's arbitrary that you didn't get in when someone else did. It likely means someone wasn't as intrested in your work as they were someone else's... which means the fit for someone else was better than your own. Fit isn't arbitrary, it's what makes a good mentorship.

 

it's easy to be mad or want to blame the system if you don't get in. As humans we look for every reason other than ourselves for why things don't go the way we want. It makes us feel better to think we did nothing wrong and it's just not fair. And while I would argue it's normally not our "fault" we don't get in  (we research what we like, and probably shouldn't change that completely just to pretend to fit with a POI because in the long run that'll not be rewarding), however we really should extensively research where we're applying and to which POI we are looking at because fit does play such a huge role. I've seen alot of people here describe their research, and then say where they're applying or with who they want to work.. and even a quick search of recent publications from there shows it's not really a topic the dept. or that person in particular has been going into. Maybe we get starstruck, or have favorite people ourselves that we've been studying, so we want desperately to work with them, so we apply there even though somewhere else or another person would be a much better fit. That's just doing a disservice to ourselves. Heck even when we do find a real fit that's good, there very easily could be someone else applying who's fit is even better than our own. That's not arbitrary, just unknown to us. It's pretty logical a POI is going to want to work with the person who's fit with their own research is better.

As for the equity issue you've brought up, this is very real. Though what it results in isn't arbitrary either. It's very unfair, and the system does favor certain types of people. However, this favoring does result in very tangible differences in applications which aren't arbitrary. By this I mean yes of course if you have more money for GRE prep (or heck tuition...) you'll likely have a higher score or have gone to a better UG private institution than the person who was from a poor area. Of course someone's who's parents are professors themselves will be able to help their kid identify schools and people who would be great fits with alot less effort than students who are trying to figure this out on their own by wadding through websites and hundreds of journal articles. This is very not equitable in terms of giving fair chances to everyone from the start. Figuring out how to bridge these societal divides is something the education system overall in the US really needs to focus more on. However, the end result of these things (however unjust in their origin) are very tangible differences in applications - for example higher GPAs, GREs, more experience from unpaid internships,prior schooling at elite universities ect. Just because their obtainment isn't fair, doesn't make them arbitrary. We are a product of them... and sorry to say, but if someone who has been able to work as an intern for 3 summers in a unpaid internship doing survey research with an institute  (and were able to afford to do this because their parents have money) applies the same round as someone who has zero research experience (maybe because they had to work a paid summer job at a department store in order to provide money for their family) and all other indicators in the file are similar and their research is the exact same- of course it's going to look like the rich kid is better prepared because they have experience in the field already. Just because the other applicant didn't have the opportunity to also get that experience too, doesn't mean that the kid who did isn't actually better prepared because of the institute work than the other. This extra qualification isn't equally open to everyone, and that isn't fair... but nonetheless that doesn't cease it from being an extra qualification that a committee should look at (and if all else equal, a very tangible non arbitrary thing they could make a decision based on). Maybe that sounds harsh, but it's very much a reality. Just because someone may not have had the same opportunities, doesn't mean people who did shouldn;t have theirs considered.

* FYI, I say this as a first generation college student. Neither of my parents even have HS diplomas apart from trade school. So, yes I've been on the receiving end of these disadvantageous and still gotten here. It may have been a harder road than some other people, but hard work and perseverance CAN make up for socio-economic differences... me being here shows that. 

 

I am not mad at the system, but I understand the system and that's why I will apply again, I know it is a game of luck/chance mixed with hard work.  Everyone in this equation must work hard.  If you don't work hard, if you don't do the right things then you shouldn't be let in.  Never did I say that hard work wasn't equal, that people shouldn't have to do equal things.  Several times you conflate income with race/ethnicity/other forms of difference (while they sometimes are, they are not always).  Ultimately my point was that it isn't merit that gets someone into grad school (which was your original point).  Merit gets you a place at the table, allows you to apply.  The part that is arbitrary is "fit" and another person's percieved ability to "know you" based off a writing sample.  Again these are two forms of cultural capital.  Your experience working near an admissions process has clearly allowed you tremendous cultural capital in terms of what programs are looking for, how they justify a candidate- I look forward to a post from you with advice on this!  The sharing of that cultural knowledge from within the institution might help a lot of people.  That experience has allowed you to craft your essays better than people who have never had exposure to that.  It is similar to individuals who have friends in departments or who happened to sit next to the prof at a conference- social capital gives them a leg up, your employment history gave you increased knowledge.  I think when we say that being able to write well tells someone who you are (yes some people are naturally better writers, but it doesn't make sense to think that of those who apply that 1/3 of the applications at least don't have incredible essays).  So I'll say again, of course you have to work hard.  You have to do everthing you can possibly find time to do if you want to get into a PHD program.  The little things, however, that allow others to float to the top do seem arbitrary because to many of us we don't have access to the forms of cultural, economic, or social capital that allow some essays to float to the top.  The tools in our reach might let us pack on research experience and rewrite our essays, try to pick better fits...but the part that makes it arbitrary is that the process is based on a set of unknown or not widely shared factors.  I'll add I agree with you on a lot, I just don't think you've disproved my point, you've just shown a lot of other examples of various forms of capital that helped you (or others) and failed to help others.  We all work hard and some people give up but I'll say again to everyone...you only lose if you give up.  Thanks for the fun conversation!  It has been a while since I had a good debate over something that wasn't politics  

[AmityDuPeuple]

I just accepted Notre Dame's offer!!! I still haven't heard from from Toronto or Yale yet. My advisor told me not to assume they are rejections, so I'm trying not to. But the more I went over it in my head, the more I am convinced that Notre Dame is going to be the best place for me in so many different ways. Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but I know I won't regret it. 

Now to celebrate!