What's with the stats request?

[strokeofmidnight]

I'm curious why so many applicants are requesting stats from the admitted students. I do understand the obvious temptation: that knowing the numbers can somehow give a sense of what it takes to be accepted. Still, I really don't think that the statistics (the GRE, the GPA/undergrad name) reveals very much about what it takes to be accepted. Certainly, graduating from a top-flight English undergrad programs can give the applicant greater opportunities for advanced scholarship, better-known LoRs. Granted, as well, that higher GRE's can help paint a picture of a more consistent, less risky applicant. And GRE's (to some extent, at some programs) do serve as flexible cutoff scores, and can help or hurt one's chances for fellowships (at some programs--even places that require the numbers--they're not really factored into the admissions process at all). The stats are relatively TINY part of the application process. Applicants with identical scores from the same university can end up with very different results...and as should be obvious by now, schools will accept students with a wide variety of background and numbers.

For what it's worth, this is not my first time applying. I actually fared much worse with slightly higher stats. In the past, I was turned down by schools that accepted students with far lower "stats"...and watching my peers over the years, some of the most successful applicants (multiple offers from the Ivy's, for example) had very GRE and/or GPA scores. There is some correlation, obviously, but I don't think that the "stats" can be at all predictive...or more to the point, relevatory of what it takes to do well in this process.

"what it takes," I suspect, has a lot more to do with the applicant's ability to think, write, and argue on a sophisticated level that's appealing to the ad-comm. It's far more flexible--subjective, even, but not necessarily random--and can't be conveyed in a handful of numbers. What I'm appealing to...is not so much a touchy-feely concept of unqualifiable "aura" that triumphs over cold statistics...but rather that most programs are indeed--as their websites tend to hint--looking holistically at the application, rather than obsessing over numbers.

[TC3]

Right, and some argue that GREs should be abolished altogether as a requirement. I'd agree that while a certain cutoff of stats applies in many cases for initial slushpile decisions, I don't think they factor into the actual acceptance decisions. I know someone who scored abysmally low on the GRE Literature subject test (as in, below the 40th percentile), but still was accepted into a top-30 program with full funding. Of course, I'm sure we all have our anecdotal two cents.

Wanting to know others' stats is really just a nervous habit, I'd say, unless a particular program is well known for basing decisions straight from stats.

[Pamphilia]

Well said! I've been wondering about these requests (and how frequently they occur) myself. I don't get it. If anything, I'm much more curious to know about acceptees' subfields than stats. Plus the "other via other" stats requests on the results page are very annoying.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Shaky Premise]

I'm curious why so many applicants are requesting stats from the admitted students. I do understand the obvious temptation: that knowing the numbers can somehow give a sense of what it takes to be accepted. Still, I really don't think that the statistics (the GRE, the GPA/undergrad name) reveals very much about what it takes to be accepted. Certainly, graduating from a top-flight English undergrad programs can give the applicant greater opportunities for advanced scholarship, better-known LoRs. Granted, as well, that higher GRE's can help paint a picture of a more consistent, less risky applicant. And GRE's (to some extent, at some programs) do serve as flexible cutoff scores, and can help or hurt one's chances for fellowships (at some programs--even places that require the numbers--they're not really factored into the admissions process at all). The stats are relatively TINY part of the application process. Applicants with identical scores from the same university can end up with very different results...and as should be obvious by now, schools will accept students with a wide variety of background and numbers.

For what it's worth, this is not my first time applying. I actually fared much worse with slightly higher stats. In the past, I was turned down by schools that accepted students with far lower "stats"...and watching my peers over the years, some of the most successful applicants (multiple offers from the Ivy's, for example) had very GRE and/or GPA scores. There is some correlation, obviously, but I don't think that the "stats" can be at all predictive...or more to the point, relevatory of what it takes to do well in this process.

"what it takes," I suspect, has a lot more to do with the applicant's ability to think, write, and argue on a sophisticated level that's appealing to the ad-comm. It's far more flexible--subjective, even, but not necessarily random--and can't be conveyed in a handful of numbers. What I'm appealing to...is not so much a touchy-feely concept of unqualifiable "aura" that triumphs over cold statistics...but rather that most programs are indeed--as their websites tend to hint--looking holistically at the application, rather than obsessing over numbers.

While I tend to agree and generally have very little interest in the "stats" of the folks that have been accepted, I can't help but wonder how the numbers are actually weighted. When I hear that schools are receiving anywhere from 300 to *700* application packages, I can't help but guess that a certain percentage of "low-stats" packages are tossed away outright. Do the committees really closely read 500 or more writing samples at 15 to 20 pages a pop? I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem all that likely. On the other hand, I have a friend who was accepted into a top 50 school with full funding in spite of an undergraduate GPA below 2.5 and only modest GRE scores. Who knows?!? I'm not convinced that adcoms don't just wad the applications up, toss them into a hopper, and make their decisions lottery-style. It would certainly explain some of the people I've met in graduate school...

[chickpeas]

as a recent offender, i should apologize. i was actually more interested in learning whether accepted students held M.A's or were coming straight out of an undergraduate program. "stats" being a word that floats around these fora often, i mindlessly re-typed it.

a pointless request, sure. but most of what i glean from this site is pointless. just a place to empty out my neuroses....

[strokeofmidnight]

While I tend to agree and generally have very little interest in the "stats" of the folks that have been accepted, I can't help but wonder how the numbers are actually weighted. When I hear that schools are receiving anywhere from 300 to *700* application packages, I can't help but guess that a certain percentage of "low-stats" packages are tossed away outright. Do the committees really closely read 500 or more writing samples at 15 to 20 pages a pop? I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem all that likely. On the other hand, I have a friend who was accepted into a top 50 school with full funding in spite of an undergraduate GPA below 2.5 and only modest GRE scores. Who knows?!? I'm not convinced that adcoms don't just wad the applications up, toss them into a hopper, and make their decisions lottery-style. It would certainly explain some of the people I've met in graduate school...

I think it really depends on the program. I inquired into the admissions procedures of the programs that accepted me (both this year, and in past years) as well as my alma mater, and it seems very difficult to generalize. On one extreme, there are schools that do not use the "stats" at all. I can't name the school, but this is one that actually publishes "average" numbers (and disconcertingly high ones at that!), but I was told by several members of the ad-comm that there is no quantitative cut and they barely look at the scores. In this case, they do read every SoP and writing sample (though "skim" might be a better word for it--hence, why I was also told to make sure that the first two pages are clear and compelling). The stats do factor in for funding purposes (to separate "regular" from "extra" funding packages) after admissions decisions are made, since the grad school does seem to take the numbers into consideration--and they control the purse-strings.

However, the more common procedure (more than half the programs that I inquired into uses some variation of this) does entail a "numbers" cut for the first round, usually on the GRE, sometimes also the GPA. The exact number varies: the highest that I've seen was 650 subject (when required), 700 verbal. No one seems really concerned about quant or the AW score. (As one might suspect, the top-ranked schools tend to use the highest "cuts"). Other programs used 680, 650, and even 600 verbal as the "bar"--and it seems that substantially higher scores aren't actually that helpful, as long as one clears the passing bar. At most of the programs (perhaps all?) that I asked about, there's some sort of safety-net for applicants that don't meet the cut. Someone will go through the "too low" pile and fish out promising applicants based on their LoR/SoP/first page or two of the writing sample.

The GPA "cut" seems really inconsistent but a 3.5 was mentioned, though everyone seemed to emphasize that it's quite flexible. Vast allowances are made it seems for tougher schools, schools without grade inflation, MA applicants, the BA gpa of MA-holders, international students, students who have been out of school for a while, students that show "upward trajectory," students with strong LoR writers...you get the picture. I suspect that it's more important that the student conveys his/her preparation and commitment, then meet a specific number.

There probably are schools that do obsess about the numbers and will systematically reject applicants that fall below it. But honestly, it seems that there are exceptions to every so-called "hard" cut, even if it isn't formally build into the admissions review process. I suspect (but don't actually know) that a call from a well-respected colleague regarding his/her "star student" might be sufficient to rescue an app from the first cut, even if the program normally rigorously enforces the numbers.

[tortola23]

When I've requested stats, what I've wanted to know is the admit's undergrad institution, their subfield/interests, who their email/phone call was from, and what was said or written in it (ie: did it contain financial info, did it mention who their advisor might be). I want to know the undergrad institution because I come from an unconventional one and wonder whether that will hurt my chances.

As for GRE/GPA, I don't get the feelng those stats are very good indicators of whether someone will be admitted or not unless they're extraordinarily low.

[strokeofmidnight]

as a recent offender, i should apologize. i was actually more interested in learning whether accepted students held M.A's or were coming straight out of an undergraduate program. "stats" being a word that floats around these fora often, i mindlessly re-typed it.

a pointless request, sure. but most of what i glean from this site is pointless. just a place to empty out my neuroses....

I think the entire month of February is a black hole of sheer pointlessness. I have never been so unproductive--unfortunately, I still have papers due, and plenty more to grade.

Part of the reason that I brought this up is that it can be really terrifying. When I first applied, I had palpitations when I discovered that my competition were (apparently) all 3.9/780 verbal graduates of ivy league and top 5 SLAC universities. (my first set of "stats" were nowhere near that high). As it turns out, I got into programs that they did not...and vice versa. In my second round, I fared far worse--but had much high scores. Some of the students who far "outperformed" me in the application pool came from lesser-known programs, and/or had far worse stats. It seems to be a poor predictor....but it can (for some of us, at least) add to the sense of inferiority and panic.

The MA versus undergrad (and also whether or not they took time off) might be a really useful thing to know. My sense is that while every program wants strong, but malleable students, programs have definite preferences on this score. Perhaps we should start a post/poll on this issue in March, when most results are in?

[strokeofmidnight]

When I've requested stats, what I've wanted to know is the admit's undergrad institution, their subfield/interests, who their email/phone call was from, and what was said or written in it (ie: did it contain financial info, did it mention who their advisor might be). I want to know the undergrad institution because I come from an unconventional one and wonder whether that will hurt my chances.

As for GRE/GPA, I don't get the feelng those stats are very good indicators of whether someone will be admitted or not unless they're extraordinarily low.

I'm curious how the email/call details are useful? Personally (though many acceptees seem to feel otherwise), I'm pretty uncomfortable disclosing that sort of detail, especially since it doesn't seem to be nearly as helpful to those who are still waiting as the very fact that the school indeed has notified, or any info about future notification patterns. And I'm not quite sure where you are getting the notion (if I read it correctly) that funding is linked to advisers. English PhD programs simply don't quite work that way--that's far more common in the sciences. In many places, you don't even acquire an adviser until you start orals, at the end of second year.

My undergrad is pretty unconventional as well. As a general rule, our undergrads do not fare extremely well when applying to grad schools, but there are always, always anomalies. Among the two or three years that I'm aware of, our students have ended up at Berkeley, Yale, Duke, and UCLA, etc. It's no secret, unfortunately, that most students in the top graduate programs also went to top undergrad programs. While I truly don't think that there is a specific preference for certain names on the diploma, students from top (and often smaller) schools are frequently far better prepared. Their LoR's tend to be weighed more heavily, since their professors would have been exposed to more high-caliber students. Still, these are all factors that can be mitigated: finding the right LoR writer and working closely with the professor...doing a senior thesis, or writing longer research papers, independent studies, etc. And of course, never underestimate the power of truly independent study--even after graduation. For some students, a year or two in an MA program and help fill out any weaknesses (though this is by no means the only way of doing so).

In short, I don't think that the name on your diploma, per se, really matters. But if your undergrad doesn't frequently send its students to grad school, you may need to proactively play catch-up in order to be as competitive as your peers from the top English programs. But for what it's worth, every year, some of the most successful applicants that I meet did their BA at Podunk U.

Edited February 16, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[TC3]

The MA versus undergrad (and also whether or not they took time off) might be a really useful thing to know. My sense is that while every program wants strong, but malleable students, programs have definite preferences on this score. Perhaps we should start a post/poll on this issue in March, when most results are in?

Last year, Penn State offered about 15 spots to BA holders, and about 3 spots to MA holders, whereas some programs explicitly require that the applicant already have an MA.

[intextrovert]

When I first applied, I had palpitations when I discovered that my competition were (apparently) all 3.9/780 verbal graduates of ivy league and top 5 SLAC universities. (my first set of "stats" were nowhere near that high). As it turns out, I got into programs that they did not...

Yup - I am that person you described - my "stats" or what have you are pretty much identical to the above - and I got the red "REJECT" stamp on all of my applications two years ago! This year, applying with exactly the same stats and even to many of the same schools, I've had much more positive results (and in what is by most accounts a more competitive year). It really is the SoP, writing sample, etc. - it really is.

Which is why I honestly do tap my foot and bite my lip in impatience a little when I see all the stats requests (and as I understand it, "stats" are numbers, not things like subfield which, depending on the way the school allocates spots, can actually be useful info). I really do have some sympathy, especially if you're a first-time applicant, because I wasn't any better - I have a neurotic thing about numbers and fretted about that stuff, too. But I've since learned that it really, REALLY doesn't matter, as long as your scores aren't notably low. But comparing your 700 verbal to another applicant's 780 is just completely and utterly pointless and inane. Further, it can persuade people to unnecessarily spend more time and money retaking tests that they've already done well enough on to pass the bar. It also creates some unnecessary competitive tension on the board (re: strokeofmidnight's former anxiety at being compared to applicants with better stats), breeds insecurity/defensiveness/one-upmanship, or serves as this unhealthy way to try to put each other on a measuring stick that just doesn't apply. No one involved intends for that to be the case, and I think it's usually an innocent request, but I think it sometimes happens anyway. At the very least it creates the potential for it.

We've been taught to value those apparently "objective" measures for so long that it's hard to believe they truly are a small part, but it really, really is the case. It's hard to accept that because it means that we're being judged on criteria that we can't ever fully understand and is highly individualized. But ultimately, that really is a good thing.

I think asking for less stats (GRE/GPA, etc.) would free us up to discuss the more nuanced - and more relevant - aspects of this simply thrilling rollercoaster of a process, and restore the sense that we're in it together a bit!

Edited February 16, 2010 by intextrovert

[soxpuppet]

<3, strokeofmidnight, thank you for this post!

I am glad someone mentioned the ratio of MA to BA admits, but so far that's pretty much the only useful "stats"-related question I have seen on this board, perhaps excepting questions regarding subfield. This is going to sound harsh, but if you asked for "stats" and meant something different from the hard numbers, you had many opportunities to clarify your query because this post is not the first indication that the question is generally interpreted in this way. I too am particularly annoyed by the requests directly on the results page, and if you're posting in the forum, you have the space to ask specific questions.

When I am wigging out about this process, which happens plenty often, let me tell you, I find it more helpful to get to know fellow applicants on a more personal level. I've exchanged emails and longer messages with some of the other posters on this board and in other communities, and knowing others well enough to hope on their behalf makes the process a lot more sane. In this way I've also come to see how different successful applicants can be, not merely in terms of their stats (however defined) but in terms of their personalities, life stories, current occupations, preferences when looking for a program, etc. I'm not here to police anyone's nervous habits, but I hope if we can think about more productive ways to channel our obsessive energies we could make the process less painful and more cooperative for everyone. The competition is out of our hands now, taking place behind closed doors - in the meantime, this and other internet communities introduce the possibility of establishing friendships with some of our future classmates, even colleagues, in advance of admission and employment. I see the stats request as one of several elements that make that difficult on this forum. The competitive connotations of many questions, especially related to stats, make me reluctant to share information that may actually be of use to forum members.

I tend to think that there is both a selfish and a general way to ask questions, and I've seen quite a few that fall into the selfish category, asking for numbers, facts, hard data, lacking interest in the further perspective and uninterested in generating robust conversation. Not saying anyone is obligated to go above and beyond, but the community is what you make of it - I think we've mostly all experienced this in conferences or lectures where the quality of the experience is greatly dependent on the quality of the questions and their ability to generate discussion.

However, I think I'm a bit off topic at this point.

[strokeofmidnight]

I find it more helpful to get to know fellow applicants on a more personal level. I've exchanged emails and longer messages with some of the other posters on this board and in other communities, and knowing others well enough to hope on their behalf makes the process a lot more sane. In this way I've also come to see how different successful applicants can be, not merely in terms of their stats (however defined) but in terms of their personalities, life stories, current occupations, preferences when looking for a program, etc. I'm not here to police anyone's nervous habits, but I hope if we can think about more productive ways to channel our obsessive energies we could make the process less painful and more cooperative for everyone. The competition is out of our hands now, taking place behind closed doors - in the meantime, this and other internet communities introduce the possibility of establishing friendships with some of our future classmates, even colleagues, in advance of admission and employment. I see the stats request as one of several elements that make that difficult on this forum. The competitive connotations of many questions, especially related to stats, make me reluctant to share information that may actually be of use to forum members.

I tend to think that there is both a selfish and a general way to ask questions, and I've seen quite a few that fall into the selfish category, asking for numbers, facts, hard data, lacking interest in the further perspective and uninterested in generating robust conversation. Not saying anyone is obligated to go above and beyond, but the community is what you make of it - I think we've mostly all experienced this in conferences or lectures where the quality of the experience is greatly dependent on the quality of the questions and their ability to generate discussion.

This, I admit, was largely on my mind when I posted that question. I can't even begin to explain just how genuinely rewarding and lasting the sense of camerdiere can be--assuming that one treats this as a community, not merely a place to scope out the competition or obtain info. Although I wasn't so active on this community in past years (in my very limited interactions, it felt hostile), the friends that started off online in other communities have been invaluable. On a practical note, my former "competition" critiqued repeated drafts of my SoP and writing samples in later rounds, offer suggestions and insight into their own programs and professors, alerted me to upcoming conferences, suggested sources and publications that was useful to my work...essentially kept me calm and sane through this process. More importantly, they've become friends--I've slept on their couches, invited them for dinner, ranted to them about crazy advisers or bad days. Grad school can be a very lonely place at times, even when one has a good cohort. It really helps to have friends/colleagues in other programs. For many of us, communities such as this is a place where such friendships can begin.

Yeah, it's kinda mushy, but I'd rather be mushy than competitive

[soxpuppet]

This, I admit, was largely on my mind when I posted that question. I can't even begin to explain just how genuinely rewarding and lasting the sense of camerdiere can be--assuming that one treats this as a community, not merely a place to scope out the competition or obtain info. Although I wasn't so active on this community in past years (in my very limited interactions, it felt hostile), the friends that started off online in other communities have been invaluable. On a practical note, my former "competition" critiqued repeated drafts of my SoP and writing samples in later rounds, offer suggestions and insight into their own programs and professors, alerted me to upcoming conferences, suggested sources and publications that was useful to my work...essentially kept me calm and sane through this process. More importantly, they've become friends--I've slept on their couches, invited them for dinner, ranted to them about crazy advisers or bad days. Grad school can be a very lonely place at times, even when one has a good cohort. It really helps to have friends/colleagues in other programs. For many of us, communities such as this is a place where such friendships can begin.

Yeah, it's kinda mushy, but I'd rather be mushy than competitive

Haha, well, mushy I suppose, but I honestly think it's the smart approach. Having friends with whom I can have substantial discussions about this has better informed me regarding the realities of this process and has helped me inform others. It also helps put these months into perspective and makes it possible to see them as an integrated part of our scholarly careers.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

On a practical note, my former "competition" critiqued repeated drafts of my SoP and writing samples in later rounds, offer suggestions and insight into their own programs and professors, alerted me to upcoming conferences, suggested sources and publications that was useful to my work...essentially kept me calm and sane through this process. More importantly, they've become friends--I've slept on their couches, invited them for dinner, ranted to them about crazy advisers or bad days. Grad school can be a very lonely place at times, even when one has a good cohort. It really helps to have friends/colleagues in other programs. For many of us, communities such as this is a place where such friendships can begin.

Yeah, it's kinda mushy, but I'd rather be mushy than competitive

Friends in the field... yes !! That's what this site has become to me. Somewhere to share anxieties and experiences, not to mention dreams and interests. After all, I live in a country where my field is basically non-existent, none of my friends care about English lit, and none of them even read as much as I do (even in Hebrew). So the minute I discovered this place, I was like... wahoo!!!

When I first joined, and saw all those magnificent states (3.8 and above GPA, 800V GRE), I nearly choked. My dad is on the adcom and is a tenured prof at brown (though not at English, not even in the humanities), and he's very number oriented, (which is why I did the general GRE again), and as I read things on this forum, I slowly realized that numbers had very little to do with acceptance to the ENGLISH PhD (stressing English, since I don't know what it's about it other fields). With us, my age might be an advantage rather than a deterrent, my GPA is from 9 years ago (pre GPA inflation), and the better scores I have in the GRE now show that I have the ability to sit down and study (the subject is important to me, specifically, since it's been so long since I've been in school and in the field). So yeah, with all the information we keep getting that the dry, hard, stats aren't as important for English, I keep wondering why ppl ask for them. I suppose insecurity. God knows I have my share of that as well.

I also learned what to stress on my next SOP (for next year, that is), and am hoping that friends made here can help - reviewing the SOP and writing sample, emotional support (doing this again next year will be harrowing, I'm sure).

[123]

Personally, I was never that interested in stats before joining this site. When I kept seeing it mentioned, I thought that maybe I *should* have been more concerned about it. I agree about a basic cutoff, since you probably want to at least clear 1000, but otherwise I think stats may only be important for fellowships. That said, I still have somewhat of an interest, since I've discovered as a grad student the importance of $. Despite what adcoms might say, everyone does *not* receive the same financial package. I don't think that stats would necessarily be the first thing adcoms would look at when making a fellowship decision, but it could be used as a tiebreaker. So, on the off chance that I ever made it into the final round for a fellowship decision, I'd rather be prepared. I'm also curious, speaking of weird hang ups on this discussion forum, what the problem with the MA is? I am finishing up my MA now, which was fully funded. As far as I know, some schools only have PhD programs or terminal MAs, while others have you enter the MA first with the idea that you will continue to the Phd (for instance, my school automatically accepts you into the PhD program, so long as you have been doing well). However, some people talk about the MA as if it's a bad thing (i.e., something people who couldn't cut it for the PhD do). I think this may be misleading for people applying to grad school for the first time. It really just depends on how the school structures their program. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents based on my own experience as a grad student. I'm sure there could be exceptions, or things that I just plain don't know about.

[Shaky Premise]

I'm also curious, speaking of weird hang ups on this discussion forum, what the problem with the MA is? I am finishing up my MA now, which was fully funded. As far as I know, some schools only have PhD programs or terminal MAs, while others have you enter the MA first with the idea that you will continue to the Phd (for instance, my school automatically accepts you into the PhD program, so long as you have been doing well). However, some people talk about the MA as if it's a bad thing (i.e., something people who couldn't cut it for the PhD do). I think this may be misleading for people applying to grad school for the first time. It really just depends on how the school structures their program. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents based on my own experience as a grad student. I'm sure there could be exceptions, or things that I just plain don't know about.

This is a tricky subject. I hold an MA, so this topic is one that I've researched pretty thoroughly. Like so many other aspects of the application process, the value of an MA varies widely from school to school. Some programs, like Ohio State, pretty much require that you have an MA in hand to be seriously considered for the PhD program. Others like Virginia and Indiana do accept applicants who have earned MAs but seem to hold such students' application packages to a much higher standard than the others (As they should! Two years of extra work is considerable!). Further, they generally accept far fewer applicants from the MA pool than from the BA pool. I doubt many programs view students who hold MAs as "those who couldn't cut it in a PhD program," but they probably do want to be able to clearly see the advances you've made while earning the degree. Did you work on foreign languages? Did you hone in on your research interests more so than you had as an undergrad? Do you present yourself as someone who's already immersed in the scholarship? Basically you're not so much proving your potential as a scholar (as those do who are moving directly from the BA to the PhD) as you are proving that you already know what being a graduate student is about and already have a pretty good handle on the discourse and the requirements. In sum, I don't see it as a handicap at all, but substantially more is expected of you. Finally, I've known loads of people who completed their MAs at different universities than they did their PhDs, including many if not most of my professors, so doing so can't be *too* detrimental.

Of course the more substantial downside is that very few (if any) schools will allow all of the coursework you completed for your MA to count towards your PhD. Which equals more time in graduate school. That's why for many of us, the best possible outcome is continuing on at the programs where we earned our MAs.

[LiteratureMajor]

I'm guilty of asking for "stats" as well, my interest being about subfields and publication experience. I haven't gotten any acceptances, rejections or waitlist notifications in my pursuit of a PhD this round (I applied to one school two years ago and was rejected), so the endless wait has gotten the best of me...

[chrissy88]

I've definitely been inclined to read posts about stats as well as ask for this type of data simply because I am coming from an English Department at a small, relatively unknown undergraduate institution and I am one of the only students in recent years to even consider going on for an M.A. or Ph.D. in English Literature. (My institution has a highly respected education program, so most English majors have chosen the major with the mindset of earning a B.A. in English and then an M.A. in Education.) As a result, I'm really on my own in this whole process. My professors have been very encouraging and supportive, but in a lot of ways, they are in unfamiliar territory with me since they have been removed from the application process for some time. Heck, after reading pages and pages of posts about professors, peers, and friends helping with SoP and the like, I'm insanely jealous because there are very few people I can ask that would be capable and willing to lend me such assistance!

I obviously recognize that my 4.0 GPA will never be seen as the equivalent of an Ivy-leaguer's 4.0, regardless of my dedication and extreme amounts of hard work. So while I clearly realize that statistical data is relative and mostly irrelevant, my requests for such data are really meant to ease my nervousness throughout the entire process. It is rather comforting to see just what you suggest--students with moderate scores getting accepted to programs I dream of attending. On a personal note, it also eases my nerves to see different individuals with vastly different statistics getting interviews or acceptances at the same schools. In a way, it makes me feel like I stand a chance in this whole ordeal.

I can understand why requests like this may be obnoxious to some, but why not just ignore them rather than harangue the requesters? At this point, I feel terribly ashamed of myself for posting one such request in the past based on the responses this thread is getting. But I honestly have no one else to ask, and for some reason, statistical things offer me comfort. So I ventured to ask for information in an open forum that made me feel welcomed and accepted. If such a thing is taboo or irksome, I apologize. But aren't we all entitled to a little peace of mind?

[strokeofmidnight]

Heck, after reading pages and pages of posts about professors, peers, and friends helping with SoP and the like, I'm insanely jealous because there are very few people I can ask that would be capable and willing to lend me such assistance!

I can understand why requests like this may be obnoxious to some, but why not just ignore them rather than harangue the requesters? At this point, I feel terribly ashamed of myself for posting one such request in the past based on the responses this thread is getting. But I honestly have no one else to ask, and for some reason, statistical things offer me comfort. So I ventured to ask for information in an open forum that made me feel welcomed and accepted. If such a thing is taboo or irksome, I apologize. But aren't we all entitled to a little peace of mind?

I suppose part of my point is that it's all too easy for the "stats" request to reduce the sense of community in an anonymous place like this, where the only "face" we present to each other are through these posts. As I noted earlier, if I benefited immensely from my peers (most of them from communities like this one)--and I absolutely did and will always be grateful--it is largely because I encountered them in a setting where we were able to see the "person" behind the statistics and where the sense of competition is largely (and willfully) pushed aside to foster collegiality. By the very fact that they invite comparisons, the "stats," I think, directly contribute to a counterproductive atmosphere of anxiety and competitiveness--even if that was never the original intention of the poster or the respondents. It's the fine difference between approaching your fellow posters here as future colleagues and friends, rather than current competition. In my experience, the very community that you're wishing for is stifled by the atmosphere that is fostered--in part--by these requests that reduce an applicant to a series of numbers. (And numbers that, I should note, aren't even very indicative of their chances for success).

I tried to avoid haranguing the requesters by phrasing my original post as a series of questions to think about--even though I have an obvious bias in all of this. You're right that I probably *should* have simply ignored the requests, as I did for years in the past. I suppose I see whatever "peace of mind" to result from the numbers as a false one--but fictions can be a necessary comfort, and I probably should have let it be. Personally, when I wasn't aware of how the numbers are factored into the process (and I suspect, most first-time applicants are in that boat), the numbers scared the hell out of me, rather than offered comfort.

Edit: and for what it's worth, I think most posters are in your boat. The vast majority of the successful applicants that I know of had already graduated before they reapplied. While they (and I) certainly leaned on former professors for advice and feedback, communities such as this CAN become a valuable source of critical and mental support--if applicants genuinely come to see each other as friends, rather than merely competition. And while I know that not everyone is interested that level of involvement...well, I suppose I'm suggesting that its possible, but requires one to rethink how to make use of these boards. In the end, I'm certainly not prescribing how these boards *should* function...I suppose, I'm trying to sketch out what is jeopardized when they are primarily used as a source of quantifiable statistics.

Edited February 17, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[hadunc]

I've definitely been inclined to read posts about stats as well as ask for this type of data simply because I am coming from an English Department at a small, relatively unknown undergraduate institution and I am one of the only students in recent years to even consider going on for an M.A. or Ph.D. in English Literature. (My institution has a highly respected education program, so most English majors have chosen the major with the mindset of earning a B.A. in English and then an M.A. in Education.) As a result, I'm really on my own in this whole process. My professors have been very encouraging and supportive, but in a lot of ways, they are in unfamiliar territory with me since they have been removed from the application process for some time. Heck, after reading pages and pages of posts about professors, peers, and friends helping with SoP and the like, I'm insanely jealous because there are very few people I can ask that would be capable and willing to lend me such assistance!

I obviously recognize that my 4.0 GPA will never be seen as the equivalent of an Ivy-leaguer's 4.0, regardless of my dedication and extreme amounts of hard work. So while I clearly realize that statistical data is relative and mostly irrelevant, my requests for such data are really meant to ease my nervousness throughout the entire process. It is rather comforting to see just what you suggest--students with moderate scores getting accepted to programs I dream of attending. On a personal note, it also eases my nerves to see different individuals with vastly different statistics getting interviews or acceptances at the same schools. In a way, it makes me feel like I stand a chance in this whole ordeal.

I can understand why requests like this may be obnoxious to some, but why not just ignore them rather than harangue the requesters? At this point, I feel terribly ashamed of myself for posting one such request in the past based on the responses this thread is getting. But I honestly have no one else to ask, and for some reason, statistical things offer me comfort. So I ventured to ask for information in an open forum that made me feel welcomed and accepted. If such a thing is taboo or irksome, I apologize. But aren't we all entitled to a little peace of mind?

Chrissy88,

I come from a very similar background: small, virtually unknown Midwestern liberal arts college where most English majors pursue careers as k-12 teachers or professional writers. I don't know of anyone from my graduating class attempting to pursue a PhD in Lit. My profs were as helpful as possible but I ultimately had to navigate the application process on my own and subsequently learned quite a bit. I would be happy to share advice/insight as I know how harrowing this process usually is, and having been through it twice now I might be of some help. PM me if you're interested in talking!

[straightshooting]

It seems to me that the difficulty with looking toward GRE and GPA numbers has to do with the tendency to take correlation for causation in a way that misrepresents their ("stats'") significance. It may very well be the case -- I'm arguing that it is -- that most of the admitted applicants to a given program will have high "stats," but that the reason for their admittance has little to do with them (beyond meeting a certain baseline). Elsewhere in this thread, posters have quite accurately pointed to the SOP, LORs, and writing sample as the most important parts of an application, the ones that (in conjunction with "fit") get people into programs. My strong suspicion is that most (but certainly not all) applicants that deliver very strong performances in these more substantive items are also likely to have high "stats." If true, we would expect to see a high degree of correlation between "stats" and admittance, but the fact is that the cause is something else: the rest of the application. Here's what's perhaps most important: while high quality SOPs, LORs, and writing samples may most often be accompanied by stellar "stats," I highly doubt -- and the anecdotes that I've read in these forums of people with high "stats" being denied across the board seem to bear this out -- that the converse is true, that having a great GPA and ace GRE scores means that one's other application materials are likely to be strong in the eyes of committee members.

Hypothetical situation: someone here reports that they were admitted into UPenn's English PhD program with, say, a 680 verbal GRE, a 660 subject, and 3.77 undergraduate GPA. These are all pretty decent "stats"; they're nothing special, but unlikely to result in a trashed application.

On the one hand, this would almost certainly indicate that the rest of the application package was quite strong. The problem is that I can imagine two responses to such information that would not follow from the data:

1) "Wow, I mean, I have a 780 verbal, 740 subject, and 4.0 GPA, so I should be set."

2) "What the fuck, man, my scores were higher than his/hers, why didn't I get in? Admissions are a sham!"

Both responses acknowledge that the lower scores can result in acceptance, but still hold to the idea that the scores have a strong causal relationship to the likelihood of acceptance, which is most likely not true (once above a certain threshold). I can absolutely understand the desire to know numbers, because you're unlikely to have access to the other application materials, but they ultimately can tell you very little.

Edited February 17, 2010 by straightshooting

[soxpuppet]

I can understand why requests like this may be obnoxious to some, but why not just ignore them rather than harangue the requesters? At this point, I feel terribly ashamed of myself for posting one such request in the past based on the responses this thread is getting. But I honestly have no one else to ask, and for some reason, statistical things offer me comfort. So I ventured to ask for information in an open forum that made me feel welcomed and accepted. If such a thing is taboo or irksome, I apologize. But aren't we all entitled to a little peace of mind?

The only thing about stats requests that truly angers me is when they appear on the results page, which, it seems to me, is a place to post acceptances, rejections, and waitlist status updates. The clutter of stats requests makes it difficult to clearly perceive the data that page is intended to represent - a rough picture of a given school's offer-making pattern. Strokeofmidnight's post above provides a more thorough answer to your additional concerns. I would add that what is intended to give you peace of mind actually contributes to the larger community's sense of panic - the *reporting* of stats often comes across as bragging because, as the results are from a self-selective group, you predominately see brag-worthy stats posted. This puts no minds at ease. In any case, no-one named names....

[chrissy88]

I tried to avoid haranguing the requesters by phrasing my original post as a series of questions to think about--even though I have an obvious bias in all of this. You're right that I probably *should* have simply ignored the requests, as I did for years in the past. I suppose I see whatever "peace of mind" to result from the numbers as a false one--but fictions can be a necessary comfort, and I probably should have let it be. Personally, when I wasn't aware of how the numbers are factored into the process (and I suspect, most first-time applicants are in that boat), the numbers scared the hell out of me, rather than offered comfort.

Edit: and for what it's worth, I think most posters are in your boat. The vast majority of the successful applicants that I know of had already graduated before they reapplied. While they (and I) certainly leaned on former professors for advice and feedback, communities such as this CAN become a valuable source of critical and mental support--if applicants genuinely come to see each other as friends, rather than merely competition. And while I know that not everyone is interested that level of involvement...well, I suppose I'm suggesting that its possible, but requires one to rethink how to make use of these boards. In the end, I'm certainly not prescribing how these boards *should* function...I suppose, I'm trying to sketch out what is jeopardized when they are primarily used as a source of quantifiable statistics.

I definitely understand your viewpoint. And I do think you are correct in saying that numbers indicate very little. My sister is in a great Ph.D. program for her field and while her GPA was stellar, she never fared well on standardized tests. So clearly numbers meant very little in her case.

And I do understand and agree that people shouldn't be simply reduced to statistics. But I also think that if a person chooses to present themself as a statistic (through the type of bragging posts someone else touched upon before), that's his/her perrogative. There is a fine line between bragging and being informative, and it's up to individuals to keep themselves in check. What I find ironic is the whole competitive nature thing. Allow me to explain. I feel like I don't have a right to even try and be competitive because of my background! So while I can't speak for everyone, staking out the competition is certainly not the reason I come here. I must say that I've learned A LOT from all of the threads here (including this one!) and that's why I keep coming back. So if and when this application run turns out to be an epic fail, I already know some things that I will be doing differently next time. And it is all thanks to people just like you! Now is that corny or what?

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I must say that I've learned A LOT from all of the threads here (including this one!) and that's why I keep coming back. So if and when this application run turns out to be an epic fail, I already know some things that I will be doing differently next time. And it is all thanks to people just like you! Now is that corny or what?

I'll second that!! I'm sure my next round of applications will fare much much better. just talking to ppl here has focused my research interests (which will reflect on new SOP), focused the "fit" issue - i.e. finding profs that share my interests, which in turn broadened the amount of schools i'm looking at, and helped me get much better prepared in general for the whole application process (of course, even applying this year did that).

I'm also not a particularly competitive person (a drawback?) except with myself. One semester in undergrad i didn't make dean's list (stupid intro to psych class) and I was extremely upset with myself . Also, my slight obsession with high GRE scores is really about my own standards of what I can do - has nothing to do with anyone else .