what schools care about when reviewing apps

[curufinwe]

I found this e-mail I received a while back when I was getting ready to pick schools and was asking few people what they care about most. This is the one I received from Columbia...

"We are often asked what we consider important in reviewing applications. First and foremost, we are looking for evidence of scholarly talent and achievement. Grades and GRE scores are, of course, helpful in locating such evidence, but they are not the only things we consider. What you say in your personal statement can be very important, and your writing sample is often the decisive factor in our decision"

Edited February 2, 2010 by curufinwe

[gazelle]

No offense and thank you, but this tells us absolutely nothing.

[curufinwe]

you are welcome.

[gazelle]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound curt in my reply, I am just another lowly Columbia applicant waiting for a decision so I'm a bit on edge. My apologies, and thanks again.

[waytooold]

I found this e-mail I received a while back when I was getting ready to pick schools and was asking few people what they care about most. This is the one I received from Columbia...

"We are often asked what we consider important in reviewing applications. First and foremost, we are looking for evidence of scholarly talent and achievement. Grades and GRE scores are, of course, helpful in locating such evidence, but they are not the only things we consider. What you say in your personal statement can be very important, and your writing sample is often the decisive factor in our decision"

I think this does tell readers something. If you look at the results, people are cursing their rejections, throwing their stats out as though admissions is a formula. This is an instructive piece of advice for those who think admissions is simply a numbers game and clarifies that personality, expressiveness and clear direction do count.

Edited February 2, 2010 by waytooold

[BillyPilgrim]

and it is comforting for those of us with mediocre GRE scores

[red_crayons]

Yeah. I've relied on slightly-above-average stats but really strong writing and storytelling skills since... as long as I can remember. Elementary school? It's gotten me pretty far. Making yourself seem interesting is really important in life. Writing dozens of cover letters in 2009 and seeing which ones got responses REALLY drove that home for me.

One of the Communications departments I applied to had really helpful tips for applicants. They stressed "fit" and explained what it actually MEANS to them. They stressed that they also want people interested in doing some sort of community outreach related to the field - that's part of "fit" for them. They also de-emphasized GRE, saying that 1200 is the AVERAGE score. That seems pretty unexceptional to me, and to think that half of applicants fall below that put me very much at ease.

I don't want to mention the school and jinx myself. Surely you all understand the temptation to be superstitious right now!

[JerryLandis]

I think it's interesting that Columbia, and University of Chicago as well, say that the writing sample is the most important part of the application. Judging from what I've read elsewhere, lots of departments seem to prioritize the letters of recommendation as the most important part. So, this tells us that while both are important, some universities and departments probably weigh these things differently. Which I guess we already pretty much knew.

I'm kind of annoyed that GPA doesn't count for more though. I know that it's a dangerous thing to focus on because of grade inflation and different systems at different colleges, but come on, what have I worked my ass off these past 4 years for? You mean to tell me I could have coasted in my classes all that time, putting all of my energy into an awesome and brilliant writing sample, and I'd be better off for it?

[curufinwe]

I think the formula I can derive from that is... first they set aside a good chunk of people that has good GPA's and GRE scores. Then they read the SoPs and try to understand who studies what and who would be a good fit. Finally they read the writing samples in order to see which one of those scholarly-talented and fit-for-faculty students actually can produce good stuff and analyze well enough.

[fuzzylogician]

Here is what UMass ling department writes in its FAQ section. I used it as a guide for all my essays:

Why was my application rejected?

Every year we get about 120 applications, for a class of 5-8 students. This means that we sometimes have to turn down people with very impressive backgrounds. When we make our admissions decisions, we consider various factors, including:

• Did the application show clear evidence that the applicant has been very successful so far?
• Did the application show that the applicant has a strong capacity for doing linguistic research?
• Does the essay show that the applicant has interests that match what our program offers?
• Does the application show that the applicant has the dedication and ability to excel in our graduate program?
• Does the application show that the applicant can explain things well and would probably become a good teacher?

Among applications that show all of these, we then must choose based on things like the distribution of particular interests (balance of semanticist, phonologists, etc), range of experience, apparent passion for linguistics, fit with the rest of the department and fit with the specialties of the faculty.

Notice that they mention experience, fit, and motivation. Fit is mentioned several times. The GPA and GRE scores are not mentioned anywhere on the FAQ page--I assume it's part of the first bullet point, being successful, but there are other important aspects to being successful. Oh, and did I mention how important fit is?

[grad_wannabe]

Fit is mentioned several times.... Oh, and did I mention how important fit is?

I mentioned this on one of the blogs, but it bears repeating: not only are schools looking for students that fit well with their programs, they are also (as it was made clear during the campus visits I made, and referenced in the UMass quote Fuzzy posted) are looking for students that fit well together. At USC they told us they were looking to craft a group of students from the applicant pool: they are not simply looking for the "best of the best." They are building teams.

Sure, you may be the objective best running back in the draft, but if your running style (aka career goals and research subjects) doesn't work with the rest of their team, you're not going to get picked.

[solairne]

I mentioned this on one of the blogs, but it bears repeating: not only are schools looking for students that fit well with their programs, they are also (as it was made clear during the campus visits I made, and referenced in the UMass quote Fuzzy posted) are looking for students that fit well together. At USC they told us they were looking to craft a group of students from the applicant pool: they are not simply looking for the "best of the best." They are building teams.

Sure, you may be the objective best running back in the draft, but if your running style (aka career goals and research subjects) doesn't work with the rest of their team, you're not going to get picked.

That is interesting, but I'm not sure that is necessarily applicable to all programs. Also about what UMASS mentioned about aptitude for teaching, that could be weighted more or less depending on programs. I'd imagine humanities and social sciences would value that more than other areas where laureates tend to go into non-academic jobs.

Also, regarding what the original post said... I still think that the GRE is all but unimportant. Several UC schools that I was considering told me that they hardly even glance at it. McGill and MIT don't even require it.

Your GPA is also important, but as somebody above me mentioned, it is hard to compare GPA across universities, and especially between candidates in different positions (MA vs BA applicants, etc.) One of my German professors told me that at UT-Austin people with aeronautical degrees were let into the German literature PhD program. It doesn't seem that fruitful to compare the GPA of an aeronautical specialist with that of a chemist when they're both applying to the German literature department. I think that it definitely doesn't hurt to have a 4.0, but I also don't think it hurts to have a 3.6. What they are looking for in admitting applicants is how others perceive your work and potential (letters of recommendation), how you present yourself and your interests (SoP), and your work (your sample).

Edited February 3, 2010 by solairne

[APHI224]

SOP and fit matter a lot, but only once you make the initial cut based on GPA and GRE. And while having a 3.6 won't hurt you, having a 3.1 will, which is why I'm anticipating 14 rejections. Cheers.

[gazelle]

SOP and fit matter a lot, but only once you make the initial cut based on GPA and GRE. And while having a 3.6 won't hurt you, having a 3.1 will, which is why I'm anticipating 14 rejections. Cheers.

This is exactly what I'm worried about, with my 3.1x.

If I can get past that initial cut schools surely have whether or not they advertise it, so they can see the extenuating circumstances that no doubt contributed heavily to it, then I'd feel a lot better. But alas, I have a feeling one of my apps (if not both) won't even make it to that stage thanks to the 3.1x.

[gravitysrainbow]

That is interesting, but I'm not sure that is necessarily applicable to all programs. Also about what UMASS mentioned about aptitude for teaching, that could be weighted more or less depending on programs. I'd imagine humanities and social sciences would value that more than other areas where laureates tend to go into non-academic jobs.

Also, regarding what the original post said... I still think that the GRE is all but unimportant. Several UC schools that I was considering told me that they hardly even glance at it. McGill and MIT don't even require it.

Your GPA is also important, but as somebody above me mentioned, it is hard to compare GPA across universities, and especially between candidates in different positions (MA vs BA applicants, etc.) One of my German professors told me that at UT-Austin people with aeronautical degrees were let into the German literature PhD program. It doesn't seem that fruitful to compare the GPA of an aeronautical specialist with that of a chemist when they're both applying to the German literature department. I think that it definitely doesn't hurt to have a 4.0, but I also don't think it hurts to have a 3.6. What they are looking for in admitting applicants is how others perceive your work and potential (letters of recommendation), how you present yourself and your interests (SoP), and your work (your sample).

Interesting. Just an FYI: no Canadian Universities (to my reasonably extensive knowledge) require the GRE. Professional programs sometimes require the MCAT / GMAT / LSAT, but I haven't seen a research degree that requires it.

[Ziz]

Interesting. Just an FYI: no Canadian Universities (to my reasonably extensive knowledge) require the GRE. Professional programs sometimes require the MCAT / GMAT / LSAT, but I haven't seen a research degree that requires it.

Not completely true for all disciplines. U of T philosophy, for example, does require the GRE. I only know of that one department because I haven't investigated any others...

[eucalyptus]

Interesting. Just an FYI: no Canadian Universities (to my reasonably extensive knowledge) require the GRE. Professional programs sometimes require the MCAT / GMAT / LSAT, but I haven't seen a research degree that requires it.

That definitely depends on your field: in psych, every program I've looked at (which granted is not that many: U of T, Queen's, UBC, McGill) do require it

[jacib]

I'm kind of annoyed that GPA doesn't count for more though. I know that it's a dangerous thing to focus on because of grade inflation and different systems at different colleges, but come on, what have I worked my ass off these past 4 years for? You mean to tell me I could have coasted in my classes all that time, putting all of my energy into an awesome and brilliant writing sample, and I'd be better off for it?

Hopefully, what you learned over four years is demonstrated in your writing sample and statement of purpose (though I had a discussion with a friend of mine recently where I felt like I'd learned a lot from classes in college and he felt that he'd learned very little, though he had a higher GPA from the same university. Neither of us were taking slacker courses of study and both of us came in with the same level of preparation from well-respected, public suburban high schools--I think there is a reason to not over emphasize GPA... I think you'd be hard pressed to say it shows for everyone accurately what they've learned in college... though it certainly says more about what you've learned than the GRE does...)

[Smaudge]

fuzzylogician- I wonder what they meant by "is successful so far"? Academic awards? Publications? High stats?

How do they define success? I'm definitely not go for launch on the publications.

[fuzzylogician]

fuzzylogician- I wonder what they meant by "is successful so far"? Academic awards? Publications? High stats?

How do they define success? I'm definitely not go for launch on the publications.

Since linguistics departments accept relatively many students who don't have a linguistics major, I assume it means that they have been successful in whatever field they came from. High stats and awards are probably expected to some extent, as well as (more importantly) a proven track record of good quality work. I've recently had a conversation with one of my professors and it came up somehow that what they look for in applicants is the potential to do innovative work. They're not necessarily looking for someone who has published in peer reviewed journals or presented at national conferences. They are looking for a person who can convince them that she will do all that once she gets the training the PhD program offers. I think the way you show you have this potential is by submitting a strong writing sample, writing a very focused and field-aware SOP, and by having strong LORs in which your current professors praise your work so far and predict great things for your future. I'm sure if each of the three writers favorably mentions a (different) paper you wrote for them, that helps. If you've TAed/RAed and have practical experience, that also helps. If you worked on any kind of project, even if there was no publication, if you are able to talk about the project's goals/methodology/findings and what it taught you intelligibly - that's a big plus. It's about showing you have the foundations to do good research - having insight, as evidenced by analyses you've proposed in your previous papers.

Edited February 4, 2010 by fuzzylogician

[Smaudge]

Great insight! I think I've got some form of everything you mentioned except for TA experience. Also, I have no idea what my LORs wrote... but they knew me pretty well so hopefully they said something personal and inspiring.

Today I am feeling optimistic! I'll enjoy this while it lasts...