Weighting of applicant factors in admissions

[katalytik]

Nice to know what we think about our adcoms thought processes.

Which factors are used to rate our applications?

1. GRE and/or subject test

2. GPA

3. Relevant work experience

4. Research publications

5. Research topic and fit with program

6. Essays: SOP etc.

7. Funding availability

8. "Brand name" of undergraduate school

My view is that they use 1,2,8 to screen applicants

After the screen, weighting is as follows: 2,3,5,4,1,8,6,7

I listed 7 last because we may be offered spots without funding.

A couple of assumptions about the poll:

1. The applications make it past any "screen" the department may have

2. I know weighting may vary by dept, school etc.

3. This question is about how the adcoms think, not what our opinion of how it should be done. So please vote accordingly

Any other views?

Edited January 26, 2010 by katalytik

[Sparky]

My field is Christianity in the Middle Ages, and I've applied to programs in a variety of departments. The history and history-esque departments have told me they look at the applications this way:

(GPA, GRE for screening)

1. Do you know Latin (or, as at least one prof at EVERY school has put it, "You're applying for medieval, so I assume you know Latin")

2. Writing sample

3. SOP; fit

4. LORs

Religion/religion-esque departments put it in this order:

(GPA, GRE for screening)

(in religion, having an Mx degree is also pretty much a prerequisite)

1. Do you know Latin

2. SOP; fit

3. What about other languages?

4. LORs

5. Writing sample

Languages tend to be a big deal in religion in general; I think for history the emphasis on Latin is era-specific.

[jacib]

My fake little sister goes to U of M for econ and says that one of her professors on the AdComm there said:

1. Your math GRE score

2. Letters of recommendation from faculty members they know and trust

3. Your analytic GRE score

4. Your verbal GRE score and TOEFL score (only if you are not a native speaker)

5. How many technical courses you took as an undergraduate and how well you did

6. Letters of recommendation from faculty who know you well

7. Other letters of recommendation

8. Your performance in non-technical economics courses as an undergraduate

9. Your personal statement

Fit, obviously, is not as important at a place like that. But i) I just wanted to show how it varies across fields and ii) notice how grades are in two groups, and LoRs are in two groups. I think that's a more accurate assessment. For the fields I'm interested in (Religion and Sociology), I'd guess it goes a little something like this:

1. Qualifications screenings
   a. GRE
   b. GPA*perceived quality of university
2. Languages, if applicable (at least a start would be good... for my Religion I will need at least three, for my Sociology at least one). Other "basic" skills (if you talk about wanting to do quantitative work, for example, you should know stats)
3. Fit/Topic/SoP
4. Letters from reliable people
5. Awards/Research experience/publications demonstrating excellence (this is the opposite of the screen, in a way, a chance to make up points lost, but it would have to be something truly extraordinary I think)
6. Writing sample (I would guess more in Religion than Sociology)
7. Performance in classes applicable to your study
8. GRE scores (non-screening)
9. Other letters
10. Other performance

Perhaps my topic is more esoteric than most so there are lower odds of proper fit, but fit is a huge deal with a lot of the academic programs. I got many responses saying "That sounds cool... I hope you find a good place to study it because it isn't here". If I get in somewhere, I think it's because someone finds my topic interesting. I think different categories offer different arenas to lose or add points. For example, a thoroughly mediocre writing sample in competent English will probably not cost you, but an amazing one will win you points. Great letters could win you a lot of points, two average positives letters (participates in class, etc.) won't cost you. A bad fit will basically cost you a million points, just like a good fit (for certain professors) might gain you a million points I was told by one professor that my application was strong; however, I should apply only if I was comfortable knowing that they would always pick a student who was a better fit over me, who had an interesting project but just wasn't the best fit with any one professor. Edited January 27, 2010 by jacib

[katalytik]

My fake little sister goes to U of M for econ and says that one of her professors on the AdComm there said:

1. Your math GRE score

2. Letters of recommendation from faculty members they know and trust

3. Your analytic GRE score

4. Your verbal GRE score and TOEFL score (only if you are not a native speaker)

5. How many technical courses you took as an undergraduate and how well you did

6. Letters of recommendation from faculty who know you well

7. Other letters of recommendation

8. Your performance in non-technical economics courses as an undergraduate

9. Your personal statement

Fit, obviously, is not as important at a place like that. But i) I just wanted to show how it varies across fields and ii) notice how grades are in two groups, and LoRs are in two groups. I think that's a more accurate assessment. For the fields I'm interested in (Religion and Sociology), I'd guess it goes a little something like this:

1. Qualifications screenings
   a. GRE
   b. GPA*perceived quality of university
2. Languages, if applicable (at least a start would be good... for my Religion I will need at least three, for my Sociology at least one). Other "basic" skills (if you talk about wanting to do quantitative work, for example, you should know stats)
3. Fit/Topic/SoP
4. Letters from reliable people
5. Awards/Research experience/publications demonstrating excellence (this is the opposite of the screen, in a way, a chance to make up points lost, but it would have to be something truly extraordinary I think)
6. Writing sample (I would guess more in Religion than Sociology)
7. Performance in classes applicable to your study
8. GRE scores (non-screening)
9. Other letters
10. Other performance

Perhaps my topic is more esoteric than most so there are lower odds of proper fit, but fit is a huge deal with a lot of the academic programs. I got many responses saying "That sounds cool... I hope you find a good place to study it because it isn't here". If I get in somewhere, I think it's because someone finds my topic interesting. I think different categories offer different arenas to lose or add points. For example, a thoroughly mediocre writing sample in competent English will probably not cost you, but an amazing one will win you points. Great letters could win you a lot of points, two average positives letters (participates in class, etc.) won't cost you. A bad fit will basically cost you a million points, just like a good fit (for certain professors) might gain you a million points I was told by one professor that my application was strong; however, I should apply only if I was comfortable knowing that they would always pick a student who was a better fit over me, who had an interesting project but just wasn't the best fit with any one professor.

It is interesting to see this. I think my program is more numbers based, but fit seems to be quite up there for you. UofM is certainly top tier in general, but even there you are unable to find a fit? Or have you found good people in each school you applied to?

[jacib]

I think a lot of people also overemphasize GPA sometimes. At many schools, it just seems like A's are par for the course. At my undergrad institution, there were very few people with GPA's over 3.6 overall (part of that was the core curriculum system). I think I know of one kid exactly who got a 3.9 in her major (actually 3.86). Even my closest friend who was the Golden Boy of his department only got 3.8. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to be fretting about a 3.5, or a 3.7 (!), GPA on this board. Undergraduate performance is quite important, but after screening, I think it takes a back seat to other issues. I think also, when it's a "head to head" round, they are going to look at where you were successful and where you had problems, and how hard you challenged yourself.

A lot of people DEFINITELY overemphasize GRE's. The advice I got that makes the most sense is, "They don't matter, unless you did significantly better or significantly worse than most other [competitive] applicants."

This all reminds of in an interview with the Harvard Dean of [undergraduate] Admissions that I read in Newsweek years ago, "90% of our applicants can do Harvard level work." I think similar things are true at the graduate level. They really get to choose whoever they want: the majority of the people who apply could probably successfully do the work. And a lot of the people who can't, probably can't because they're simply not ready, and numbers and essays won't necessarily tell you that. Who they choose is fit (as well as some academic fitness... they obviously don't want slackers) and who they avoid will be the unclear, uncommitted SoPs (this is what a lot of the second rounders say was their biggest failing the first time). Honestly, I think those are what very often makes or breaks people. Now, between those people they'll compare the finer details, but I think it goes Screening-->Fit/Readiness-->details between two good candidates (with a "feeling" about fit able to overrule numbers)

[jacib]

It is interesting to see this. I think my program is more numbers based, but fit seems to be quite up there for you. UofM is certainly top tier in general, but even there you are unable to find a fit? Or have you found good people in each school you applied to?

Sorry by "place like that" I was referring to "a field like Econ" not "a school like Michigan".

...I think I found fits at all my schools, but it's subjective. I thought I found a good fit at one Religion program, he did Turkey and Modern Islam... but he did Ottoman Turkey and Modern Islam in the Arab world; he said he wouldn't feel comfortable advising a project on Modern Islam in Turkey. In Sociology, fit tends to be looser: studying religion and politics interacting is enough for a good fit (preferably with an eye towards the past, for in Sociology I am historical, not contemporary). Hell, even less than that might be considered a good fit (we'll see... I applied to one program that didn't have anyone doing Religion, but had a lot of people working on Politics). I guess the two fields view the role of a teacher differently: in Religion, the teacher is definitely seen as imparting knowledge; in Sociology, the teacher directs along a path by imparting tools. I think I have the best fit at three or four schools where the methodology AND one other factor (Turkey, secularism) come into play. If I had to bet, those would be the schools I felt most confident about, rather than slightly lower ranked schools where my fit was worse.

[katalytik]

Sorry by "place like that" I was referring to "a field like Econ" not "a school like Michigan".

...I think I found fits at all my schools, but it's subjective. I thought I found a good fit at one Religion program, he did Turkey and Modern Islam... but he did Ottoman Turkey and Modern Islam in the Arab world; he said he wouldn't feel comfortable advising a project on Modern Islam in Turkey. In Sociology, fit tends to be looser: studying religion and politics interacting is enough for a good fit (preferably with an eye towards the past, for in Sociology I am historical, not contemporary). Hell, even less than that might be considered a good fit (we'll see... I applied to one program that didn't have anyone doing Religion, but had a lot of people working on Politics). I guess the two fields view the role of a teacher differently: in Religion, the teacher is definitely seen as imparting knowledge; in Sociology, the teacher directs along a path by imparting tools. I think I have the best fit at three or four schools where the methodology AND one other factor (Turkey, secularism) come into play. If I had to bet, those would be the schools I felt most confident about, rather than slightly lower ranked schools where my fit was worse.

I have to agree with you that GRE scores only matter when they stand out from the other competitive applicants. Good way to saying this. My emphasis is on information technology, quality improvement, and health policy. IT has become huge in healthcare recently with all of the federal stimulus, and all the programs I applied to are either highly interested in the field or are already at the cutting edge of the field. Fit it seems will be an important consideration and I am glad I took a dive and told them exactly what I see for my career and research. BTW, I sent you a PM.

[Timothy Vallier]

In my field (and missing from your poll) #1 is the portfolio, and it can more or less trump any other item on the list.

[kismetcapitan]

In my field (and missing from your poll) #1 is the portfolio, and it can more or less trump any other item on the list.

yep, fine arts is definitely a different game. I was undergrad at NEC, and the audition wasn't the main factor...it was the ONLY factor! (got rejected for M.M.@NEC way back then, but my juries (classical piano) were always pretty shaky so no big surprise there).

Edited February 23, 2010 by kismetcapitan

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

For the departments I'm applying to, the process seems to be somewhat different. What is important on an application seems to depend upon where in the pipeline my application is and who is looking at it. This is the process and criteria as I best understand it.

Stage 1: Admissions Committee

The composition of adcomms vary; they can be an informal small group of faculty in a department or they can be a formal part of the administration of a graduate school. The purpose of the adcomm seems to be to reduce the size of the applicant pool. They seem to exclude on the basis of those who don't really have a chance to begin with, e.g., they may reject applications that don't meet the minimum standards of the department or university. They are looking primarily for reasons to exclude you from the pool. If you pass the adcomm committee, your application is then forwarded to the department. The adcomm committee will probably give the following criteria greater weight:

• GPA scores for your highest degree. Even though grades may be inflated with a graduate degree, these are sometimes given greater weight over a bachelor's degree as they are a reliable barometer for how successful you will be in a graduate program. Nevertheless, because they are looking for a basis to exclude, if you have a 2.1 GGPA and a 3.4 UGPA, it is likely you will be excluded in this round. At the same time, a 3.9 GGPA is not likely to have much preference over a 3.7 because of minute variances in GPA across graduate programs.
• GRE red flags. An inordinately low score is a red flag even in programs that say they do not consider those scores. I had a friend who was excluded by the adcomm committee from 5 out of 6 programs because he had a quant score in the 300s. No one wants a person who cannot read a graph or figure out the area of a rectangle.
• Incomplete applications. Missing transcripts? Thou shalt do thy paperwork.
• Financial considerations. If you are a foreign student and can't pay your own way, you might also be excluded in this round.
  Stage 2: Adviser Election
  
  If you passed the first round, congrats! At least now a prof gets to see your file. But the rules also change. You are no longer rejected based upon an administrative criteria, but you must now be selected into a program. If there is a seat available for you, an application now gets shunted to the professor that you named on your application, and he will decide if it is a fit or not. If it is love at first sight, you will get an interview or an acceptance depending on department policy. If not, then your application gets placed on the slush pile where other advisers can look at it until all the seats are filled. The following criteria seem to matter more:
  
  • LORs. These seem to rate really high. Does the prospective adviser recognize the name of you recommender? And even more, does your prospective adviser respect your recommender's opinion?
  • SOP. Yes, it does seem to matter. They want to know that you will be successful in the program you are admitted to? They also use these to glean insights into your personality.
  • Fit. Will you be able to work with people and your adviser? Does your research area match your advisers? Will admitting you add prestige to the university?
  • Languages. Very, very important. You ability to read academic literature in French, German, and research languages is too often overlooked by the American student.
  • A writing sample is usually not as important as the other criterion above, unless something in your writing sample raises a red flag, e.g., your writing sample is written in crayon.

Stage 3: Mopping Up

If you receive a rejection after the Advisor Election, it is usually for one of the following reasons: (1) they ran out of seats, (2) there were better candidates that accepted their offers, (3) no adviser felt that you were a good fit, and/or (4) the department had to do a further parring down of the application pool and had to use any reason conceivable to reject applications. Sometimes applications are sent to a graduate school administrator for quality control checking prior to an offer being made.

What is the most important to a committee will depend mostly upon the department and the adcomm. With one of my applications, the school I sent it to does not have an adcomm; the application went straight to the department. So like almost everything in life, it depends. University departments are all over the map on their procedures and what they deem as important. So, some or none of the information that I've given may apply to your particular situation. I don't vouch for the accuracy of anything I've said. And since I have yet to be accepted anywhere, I cannot tell you with any sense of reliability what actually works.

#include <std.disclaimer>