Devastated by my GRE score. Is there any hope for me?

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

crazypoligirl said:

I think all of us on here understand that doctorate study is not for the faint of heart. Really I just don't believe there are hordes of unqualified people applying to these programs in the first place. For the most part, we are all amazing applicants, but the adcomm has got to make distinctions somehow.

In my first semester in an Econ PhD program, our director of graduate studies explained how they went through the process of choosing who to admit and claimed that it was quite standard throughout the social sciences. Their first run through, directly after the deadline, is spent removing woefully unqualified applicants. He said that roughly half of all applicants had multiple major problems in their profile (no/negative recommendations, GPA 2.5 or below, GRE scores below 400 in every catagory, and so on), not just one poor section. He said that this problem was even more pronounced at top schools, as every student has a "stretch" school and many of these overlap. As application fees have apparently dropped significantly over the years, mediocre students feel the extra application, as unlikely as an admit may be, is still worth it.

He also told us that, unlike the pure sciences, social sciences get a lot of applicants who apply simply because they were afraid of going out into the real world or didn't know what else to do with their degrees. These were often less driven students with relatively poor credentials.

This is all before the applications ever make it to the committee. Granted, I'm sure that none of the people on this forum will find themselves on the immediate drop pile (aside from myself, of course), but the point is that there really are many unqualified applicants out there.

On another topic, Penn State, Emory, and WashU are beginning to review Poli Sci applications, though we still won't hear back for quite a while.

[flyingwalrus]

UndraftedFreeAgent said:

On another topic, Penn State, Emory, and WashU are beginning to review Poli Sci applications, though we still won't hear back for quite a while.

Sweet. Good to know another one of the schools I applied to has started.

[amanda1655]

Their first run through, directly after the deadline, is spent removing woefully unqualified applicants. He said that roughly half of all applicants had multiple major problems in their profile (no/negative recommendations, GPA 2.5 or below, GRE scores below 400 in every catagory, and so on), not just one poor section.

Oooo.... This makes me feel a little bit better about my application. I have always imagined the other applicants as people slightly smarter than I am. I could just imagine the committee discussion... "Well, this one has 3.96 GPA and 1430 GRE while this one has a 3.94 and a 1390 GRE. Their recommendations are all fantastic and their writing samples suggest they could both do well in our program. I guess we'll accept the former and reject the latter." I know that the admissions game isn't THAT numbers based, but still...

[crazypoligirl]

Oooo.... This makes me feel a little bit better about my application. I have always imagined the other applicants as people slightly smarter than I am. I could just imagine the committee discussion... "Well, this one has 3.96 GPA and 1430 GRE while this one has a 3.94 and a 1390 GRE. Their recommendations are all fantastic and their writing samples suggest they could both do well in our program. I guess we'll accept the former and reject the latter." I know that the admissions game isn't THAT numbers based, but still...

Agreed. that makes me feel better also. But for my top choice there are still only 10-12 spots... so I am not sure how much better; that's still pretty darn competitive!

[Minnesotan]

I am new to the forum

Fair enough. Let me be the first to welcome you.

Alwso let me clue you in on one thing - I'm always saying things with a glitter in my eyes. If it seems like I'm giving you hell, it's only because I tease everybody around here.

We're all, like it or not, in this together.

*sigh*

=)

[Minnesotan]

UndraftedFreeAgent said:

In my first semester in an Econ PhD program, our director of graduate studies explained how they went through the process of choosing who to admit and claimed that it was quite standard throughout the social sciences. Their first run through, directly after the deadline, is spent removing woefully unqualified applicants. He said that roughly half of all applicants had multiple major problems in their profile (no/negative recommendations, GPA 2.5 or below, GRE scores below 400 in every catagory, and so on), not just one poor section. He said that this problem was even more pronounced at top schools, as every student has a "stretch" school and many of these overlap. As application fees have apparently dropped significantly over the years, mediocre students feel the extra application, as unlikely as an admit may be, is still worth it.

He also told us that, unlike the pure sciences, social sciences get a lot of applicants who apply simply because they were afraid of going out into the real world or didn't know what else to do with their degrees. These were often less driven students with relatively poor credentials.

This is all before the applications ever make it to the committee. Granted, I'm sure that none of the people on this forum will find themselves on the immediate drop pile (aside from myself, of course), but the point is that there really are many unqualified applicants out there.

On another topic, Penn State, Emory, and WashU are beginning to review Poli Sci applications, though we still won't hear back for quite a while.

That was very helpful, Free Agent. I should repost that comment, and "sticky" it.

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

That was very helpful, Free Agent. I should repost that comment, and "sticky" it.

I have more that could be included about the further rounds, as well.

Once the initial round of cuts have been made, that's when the rest of the committee gets involved. This is the painstaking process of which most of you were thinking, where details start to matter. The director of graduate studies forwards the "reasonable" applications to the other committee members. All members of the committee get all applications. The job is then to go through and rank the top applications based on what the committee member is looking for in students. Ranking is generally limited to 3x the number of slots available. Each member has his or her own idea of the ideal student profile, so this is when the committee gets together to discuss applications.

The first step is to compare the rankings. Naturally, any consensus on top students means an admit, while an agreed low ranking means a rejection. What happens next depends largely on the program in question. Some committees will go through and argue for/against certain applications until a set of compromise rankings is established. Others, particularly those with a strict pecking order, default to the opinions of the senior members of the committee. Usually 40-50% of the admits are on the consensus admit pile and the remaining 50-60% are chosen subjectively. Here is where "fit", unique parts of your profile, having worked with a professor/someone the professor knows, and things like that help. Your best shot is if someone picks up your file and is willing to fight for your admission. Otherwise, it's the crapshoot we've been talking about for months.

I think he explained it told us because he never dreamed that any of us would leave and apply to another program. Not like it's any big secret that must be hidden at all costs, but the entire process seems like a black box mechanism to outsiders (meaning we throw in our apps, something mysterious happens, and then we get our result).

[NO8DO]

Though you are in a different field, I bet the majority of at least Humanities/Social Sciences ad comms run like this. Thanks for being thorough- gives us a better idea of what to expect when they are ripping apart our apps!

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

Though you are in a different field, I bet the majority of at least Humanities/Social Sciences ad comms run like this. Thanks for being thorough- gives us a better idea of what to expect when they are ripping apart our apps!

No problem. That's what these forums are for, right?

[fedge]

My mom is the chair of a graduate program at a top 20 university. She agreed that this is the typical admissions process. She also stressed to me that no matter how strong your credentials are there are at least 10 applications that are just as strong, or stronger. Especially at top schools. The best schools reject more qualified applicants than they admit. A good back story goes a long way. Food for thought.

[rising_star]

A good back story goes a long way. Food for thought.

*fingers crossed* I certainly hope not. My applications basically include no biographical information in an effort to pitch my research project, discuss my current two projects (both funded), and get the fit part in without exceeding the prescribed length. *sigh* I may be doomed...

[NO8DO]

As much as a good back story could do, I imagine the same can be said about a very in depth research proposal - maybe that even figures into it. I was told by my advisor especially that I should be quite specific as to my research interests (while also being broad enough so as not to give them the impression that that is all that I want to study). At least for the MA, she said that a lot of people go into it without having conducted any MAJOR (thesis, conference paper, publications etc.) research projects and so having something like that under your belt, plus being quite concrete in what you wish to study, is also a great thing to have. I'm not the adcom so obviously I can't say for sure, but I imagine that it helps.

In most cases I was able to tie in an anecdote of when I studied abroad, blending the back story with my research interests quite well so hopefully that works to my advantage!

[NO8DO]

oh so anyway my point of that, britt, was that I'm sure you'll be fine! haha forgot to add that in at the end.

[Minnesotan]

I was warned against including too much biographical information in the SoP by a superstar in my field. Desiderata could vary quite a bit by program.

[fedge]

A good back story goes a long way.

I should have phrased that differently. A good back story can be a lot of things (including research conducted, research proposals, etc). The point was that a person with a 4.0 and 1600 GRE isn

[Minnesotan]

Like my winning personality and rugged good looks?

I included a headshot with my supplementary materials.

[fedge]

I sent a head shot of Brad Pitt with my name on it. I'm just hoping that the adcoms have so many apps to review that they don't notice.

[picklejar]

One of my fellow students and I had long debates over the personal/anecdotal SoP versus the professional/research-proposal, and how one would strike a balance. We could never really come to a consensus. Also, I had several faculty members look over my statement, and their remarks varied quite a bit. One praised my "anecdotal" introduction, saying it would certainly get a committee's attention and set me apart from the pack. Another drew a giant "X" through that entire paragraph, with a terse note: "Cut this. Not relavent."

In the end I feel I found a good middle-ground. My personal always relates to the professional, and doesn't take up a bulk of the statement. But I still feel some anxiety over the SoP...

[picklejar]

Uh, I meant relevant. Ugh.

[Minnesotan]

I went with a very straightforward, concise essay on my research experience, potential research area, program fit, and professional goals. This is what most of the people I polled advised me. From their comments, it seems the personal/anecdotal can help or hurt you depending on who is reading it, but the straightforward laying-out of relevant information could never hurt you - it just might not be as flashy.

I hope they were right, because my statements from two years ago were horrid. I really took care to improve upon that portion of my application this time around.

[rising_star]

I did what you did Minnesotan. I can't even read my old personal statements but I will say that I referenced wanting to be part of the university community by cheering for their football team to win the conference championship...

[fedge]

I stressed how my graduate education (MBA) and work experience (former VP) provide me with a unique perspective. I was very general in describing my research interests. I hope that doesn

[crazypoligirl]

figuring out the SOP was such a tough part of the process for me. Like many of you have commented, people's opinions were often conflicting. I sent my statement to the career development office at my alma mater (there is a special person to help with grad school apps) after getting feedback from several different professors, and he absolutely ripped it to shreds!

I think I came out with a better statement in the end because of it, but man was it stressful! I would adopt changes that one professor thought would be better only to find that another professor hated it!

In the end, I just had to trust my gut and the gist of advice offered because I think that it is pretty impossible to "inspire" everybody; particularly those that are going to be reviewing our apps.

They are going to be looking at hundreds of apps.... I don't need them to fall in love with me, I just need them to like me well enough to let me in, teehee!

[rising_star]

See this is why I only asked one professor for advice on my statement. I didn't want any conflicting advice! Beyond her, I got my mom and sister to proofread my statements and, for one program, my roommate (we're in the same field and even subfield). FWIW, they all liked it.

[NO8DO]

I did the same with regards to my SoP and getting only one prof to look over it- she's my advisor and has worked on an adcom before so I felt that her opinion was enough - plus like others have said I didn't want to have other influences prying at it as I still wanted it to reflect my original intent for admission.