History Admissions 2008

[nomadism]

Nomadism, congratulations! I'm so happy for you - what fantastic news!

By the way, did your applyyourself status change - just wondering if that's a good way to keep track of my status.

Um, thanks dubitocogito.

No, I've just check my appyyourself site, but there is no changes on regarding any information on my application. Good luck.

[Historylover]

Do you think faculty receive any part of that application fee? Sure it helps people who handle the administrative things (application processing, paying to have an online system, etc), faculty members don't necessarily get a pay increase for serving on the admissions committee. Often it's the assignment that you get for drawing the short straw because it means you have to go through all those applications. I can understand wanting someone to read your application. But, have you ever graded papers? Can you imagine having 200 30 pg papers to read and grade for all your students and having a week or so to do it (in addition to your other responsibilities)? Given those time constraints, wouldn't you start to seek out shortcuts to help you sort through the papers and grade them more expeditiously? Using GRE scores is just one way to do that.

P.S. You can't get a 599 on the Verbal. It goes by 10s.

First, I think you may have missed the whole point of my post. I honestly don't think faculty get extra or a part of the application fee. I went to an undergraduate institution and worked for two different departments not counting the academic dean. In fact, I respect the constraints of faculty members time as I have had to see it from behind the scenes and try to do much grading and other duties as possible to help reduce their work load. At most I know that many faculty serve on even more than one committee (from my experience it's anywhere from 3+).I was suggesting that they should let applicants know the cut-offs, so both applicants AND professors don't have to waste time and money on an application that will never be read completely. $75 is a lot of money to pay for something that someone will just say oh they got a 590 and not a 600--so they were close but not good enough to read the rest of it. In addition, applicants put in a serious amount of time and effort to have someone look at their applicant not to mention the professors at our schools that have to take time out from their grading and work to write LORs or go online and fill out forms for us. I understand your perspective, and yes, it's a balance of pros and cons with each. I believe that if we pay that much money, some kind of reasonable arrangement should be made to read the entire applicantion. May be reducing the course load of professors on the committee or more members on the committee. I am sorry as it has been a year since I took the GREs, I did forget the scale was in 10s and not increments of one-I was trying to make the point that cutoffs can be ridiculous.

[Cornell07]

Looks like, according to ApplyCorner, that someone with an 800/800/6, BA\JD at a Top 10 took another one of the slots. Umm... I certainly hope that is nowhere near an average profile.

One of my former professors said that while GRE's don't tell the committee everything, a score under 600 is usually a very bad sign. I wonder, does anyone think that having a high quantitative score (770) can somewhat offset a so-so verbal score (630)? Hey, Yale considers "statistics" to be a language if you are studying American history!

[Historylover]

I think if the committee knows of your potential interest in statistics, it could help that is provided that there is not some unofficial cutoff. In addition, it would probably do a great deal of good if you have expressed an interest in quanitative history, and they have some faculty in American history that shares this interest with you.

[amanda1655]

I just received an e-mail from a Yale professor saying that it was unlikely that I would be offered admission for the Ph.D. program this year but that several history faculty were very interested in my application and they would like permission to move it to the European Studies MA Program. In their e-mail, they gave me around 6 or 7 reasons why I should accept their offer, including that I would be much more likely to be accepted to a top program with an MA from Yale and that I would probably receive much more attention on the job market.

I smiled a bit because I already have a PhD offer from a top 10 program, but I would probably accept their offer if the MA offered me funding and the PhD program didn't.

I guess I'll count this as being 1 1/2 for 2. (Only 7 more to go!)

[daydaydvd]

I just posted my results from Yale at the results section.

After being interviewed 10 days ago with 2 Profs. from Yale, I finally got an email from my potential advisor, and also one of her Ph.D students that I had known personally.

I'll post more details later, but for now I'm just adding some follow-up information to the posting I wrote at the results section.

Good luck to all.

ps.

My GRE scores weren't that great, in fact, my verbal was less than 700, and the my writing score were only 4.5. Well, maybe my background as not being and American was also put into consideration (I'm a South Korean), but still I think it would be worth to share this information.

Oh, you are super ! you have already got the offer of UCLA and Yale, and interviewed from Princeton. It seems that you will have hard time to decide where to go. Admire!

[dubitocogito]

Wow, Amanda, I think that's excellent news - must feel good knowing they took such an interest in your application.

[Minnesotan]

But I think HL's point was that, if such cut-offs exist, then why not post them

I'll give you three reasons: $$$

[Historylover]

I'll agree money probably plays a big part in it, but the more prestigious schools don't really need the money-so what's the point of not disclosing the cutoffs. I read somewhere that Harvard's endownment is so large that it could run over 100 years w/o charging tution. Would a school like that really need the extra cash from a hundreds perhaps thousands of applications? Wouldn't it save schools like that personnel (which =$$$) not to mention all the space those applications, transcripts, LORs take until they could be scanned in the system or sent to the department.

[historygirl]

Because posting minimums wouldn't solve the problem.

Let's say they post a minimum of 650 V. Then candidates that may get a second look even with a low verbal, such as international candidates or candidates with LORs from known advisors don't apply. Let's say they put it at 600V. They have tons more applications, so they still need to weed out apps. The fact is, the "minimum" changes every year based upon the applications they receive. Also, they don't weed out simply based on GRE, but they do weed out on a combination of GRE and GPA. If you have a high GPA and a low GRE, they may give other parts of you app a second glance. If there are other factors there, such as pubs or great LORs from well-known people, you will probably get a thorough read. If not, it's awfully hard to overcome the number of applicants that have excellent GREs, GPAs, and LORs. This is all according to a prof who used to be at Yale history.

IMO (and this is brutally honest), if a person has a mediocre GRE and GPA, they should know better than to apply to Yale, anyway. The competition will be better and tougher at the top places. They don't know you, and they don't have time to get to know you, so they work with what they have. GRE scores, while you may not like them, are an indicator of future success and, more importantly, give context to your GPA. We can't all get into Yale. Life's rough that way.

[dubitocogito]

Because posting minimums wouldn't solve the problem.

Let's say they post a minimum of 650 V. Then candidates that may get a second look even with a low verbal, such as international candidates or candidates with LORs from known advisors don't apply. Let's say they put it at 600V. They have tons more applications, so they still need to weed out apps. The fact is, the "minimum" changes every year based upon the applications they receive. Also, they don't weed out simply based on GRE, but they do weed out on a combination of GRE and GPA. If you have a high GPA and a low GRE, they may give other parts of you app a second glance. If there are other factors there, such as pubs or great LORs from well-known people, you will probably get a thorough read. If not, it's awfully hard to overcome the number of applicants that have excellent GREs, GPAs, and LORs. This is all according to a prof who used to be at Yale history.

First, you say posting minimums won't solve the problem, then you say people with mediocre stats should know better than to apply. How would they know better? Because they had their application rated at applycorner?

Is the fluctuation in numbers so great that it is not useful to post something like "In 2007, the lowest 25% of admitted applicants scored 1300 on the GRE and presented a 3.6 GPA"? Or, "In recent years, the committee has not considered scores below 600V and 600Q."

Sure, we all can guess that Yale's entrance requirements are very high, but what about Stony Brook or Ohio? Good schools, no doubt, but what are the minimums for mid-range schools?

We can't all get into Yale. Thanks for clearing that up. But we don't all have to waste $90 on applying there, either. Credit card bills are rough that way.

[rising_star]

First, I think you may have missed the whole point of my post. I honestly don't think faculty get extra or a part of the application fee. I went to an undergraduate institution and worked for two different departments not counting the academic dean. In fact, I respect the constraints of faculty members time as I have had to see it from behind the scenes and try to do much grading and other duties as possible to help reduce their work load. At most I know that many faculty serve on even more than one committee (from my experience it's anywhere from 3+).I was suggesting that they should let applicants know the cut-offs, so both applicants AND professors don't have to waste time and money on an application that will never be read completely. $75 is a lot of money to pay for something that someone will just say oh they got a 590 and not a 600--so they were close but not good enough to read the rest of it. In addition, applicants put in a serious amount of time and effort to have someone look at their applicant not to mention the professors at our schools that have to take time out from their grading and work to write LORs or go online and fill out forms for us. I understand your perspective, and yes, it's a balance of pros and cons with each. I believe that if we pay that much money, some kind of reasonable arrangement should be made to read the entire applicantion. May be reducing the course load of professors on the committee or more members on the committee. I am sorry as it has been a year since I took the GREs, I did forget the scale was in 10s and not increments of one-I was trying to make the point that cutoffs can be ridiculous.

First, I'm pretty sure I didn't miss the whole point of your post. You're posting to whine about being worried about your application possibly not even being considered. If you thought that was a possibility, why did you submit the application? Why did you pay the $75? You choose to apply, they can choose not to consider your application. That's just the way the world works. So I feel like you're whining is a bit petty.

Is the fluctuation in numbers so great that it is not useful to post something like "In 2007, the lowest 25% of admitted applicants scored 1300 on the GRE and presented a 3.6 GPA"? Or, "In recent years, the committee has not considered scores below 600V and 600Q."

I think such things could be very misleading. Everyone knows that applications to graduate schools tend to increase when there's an economic recession. So maybe what would be a competitive application based on stats last year would not be next year. Plus, I don't think any committee could ever write something like your "In recent years" statement because it would minimize their ability to consider applications whose first language isn't English, who don't perform well on standardized tests, etc.

You two can't have it both ways. You can't have posted minimums and the desire to be considered based on more than just your statistics. Either they weed you out based on the minimum, or they skim through your application and give you a chance. If you did more informal networking before applying, you might know about these minimums and maybe that could alleviate your complaint about paying. Once you give them your money, it's up to them to decide how to treat your application. If you don't think you'll like the way they handle it, don't apply.

On that note: I think this entire conversation should either be dropped or moved over to the Applications section of the forum since it is decidedly not focused on History 2008. I'm going to leave it up to Minnesotan to decide.

[Cornell07]

FYI: Columbia decisions will be made by February 22.

(I know. I was a bad applicant and I called, but someone on the board said that he/she had already heard back...)

[dubitocogito]

First, I'm pretty sure I didn't miss the whole point of your post. You're posting to whine about being worried about your application possibly not even being considered.

Wow, that's just plain mean. I wouldn't expect that from a moderator. Good luck to you.

[Cornell07]

Alright. Everyone, please take a breather.

If you are like me and have not already had an acceptance, I would guess you feel a bit overwhelmed. I certainly am thinking: "Were my stats good enough?" "What could I have done better?" "Is there anything I can do at this instant to rectify my situation???" (probably not) I would not be suprised if others share these sentiments.

Yes, the adcoms' decisions probably will change our live's directions either for a couple years (if we don't get in now) or potentially for the rest of our lives (if wedo get the thick envelope). That's pretty heavy stuff, all things considered, and we have all considered it.

While aggravating the insecurities of others won't hurt your chances of getting in, it won't help you either.

[canadiana]

Off topic, I just got waitlisted at Johns Hopkins! Don't know my rank, but the very fact that I got on the list is very encouraging for me. Even if I don't get in, I'm really happy to have been seriously considered.

[eternallyviolet]

I need to get out of the house.

I need to *not* check my email 60 times a day.

I need to grade papers.

I need to HEAR something. Anything.

ARGGGGH!

:shock:

[Cornell07]

Congrats canadiana! Yep, even if you are waitlisted, you can rest assured that someone out there likes you and probably others do too.

[rising_star]

Wow, that's just plain mean. I wouldn't expect that from a moderator. Good luck to you.

I wasn't aware that being a moderator meant I couldn't have personal opinions and express them. I would also point out that I'm not a moderator on this particularly forum. And it wasn't mean. You keep expressing the same complaint repeatedly and I decided to point that out. Blunt maybe. But not mean.

[dubitocogito]

I wasn't aware that being a moderator meant I couldn't have personal opinions and express them. I would also point out that I'm not a moderator on this particularly forum. And it wasn't mean. You keep expressing the same complaint repeatedly and I decided to point that out. Blunt maybe. But not mean.

Oh, sorry, I guess I was wrong for what I felt. You're right!

Feel free to go ahead and get the last word (maybe make some jerk comment about me?). I'm done with this forum; these applications are stressful enough.

Thanks for brightening my day!

[dmh26]

It's officially driving me crazy...I want to hear from OSU..lol The only recorded admission was last year on Feb. 8th. Does anyone know anything or did you hear anything. Are there any other OSU applicants as impatient as me?

[daydaydvd]

It seems that people admitted can alwasys get the early news from the department, as professors want to be the first one to let his/her potential students know the great news.

[ver]

-

[arthistorian]

thanks for the post, ver. very informative.

[Cornell07]

Oh well. FYI: Yale is up (check your email)