What I'm looking at when I review applications

[cyberwulf]

Well, the first round of application deadlines has come and gone, and soon your applications will be in the hands of admissions committees at programs around the country. From the outside, the process likely seems pretty mysterious, so I thought I would give an overview of how I review PhD applications. 

DISCLAIMER #1: My approach does not necessarily reflect how other admissions committee members perform their reviews.

DISCLAIMER #2: This description applies to PhD applications, where the goal is to identify and rank the most promising applicants; the process is different for Masters admissions, where the goal is to figure out whether applicants meet a given standard.

- The process begins when we receive a list of applicants whose applications are ready to be reviewed (i.e., they are sufficiently "complete"). For each applicant, we typically have access to individual documents (transcript, letters, research statement, etc.) along with a combined PDF file that has all the relevant information.

- First, I get a feel for what type of applicant this is. There are five common types: domestic students coming from undergrad, domestic students attending Masters programs, international students attending US undergrads, international students attending US masters programs, and international students attending undergrad in their home country. I'll also note the institution(s) attend(ed). This sets the expectation for what I will be looking for in the application.

- Next, I'm likely to notice standardized test scores. Both are going to help me start forming my impression of your application.  Basically, I'm looking for anything concerning (e.g., a low GRE quant score) or particularly impressive (a high verbal and/or analytical writing score); if they're in the "solid" range, I don't pay much attention to specific numbers or percentiles.

- One of the things I pay closest attention to is the transcript. I'll start by doing a quick scan to get a rough sense of overall performance; then I'll look more carefully at the courses. I'll start by looking at how many math courses were taken, and how well the applicant did in them. If there are some lower grades on the transcript, I'm interested to see whether they're mostly in "heavier" courses (such as organic chemistry) or "lighter" ones. In evaluating the transcript, I very much keep in mind the institution attended; if I've never heard of a school (and I've heard of a lot of schools, through my experience in admissions), anything less than a near-perfect GPA is likely going to be an issue, and conversely, if an institution is known for grade deflation, a lower GPA might not be fatal. 

- At this point, if there is anything unusual in the transcript or the rest of the application that seems to beg for an explanation, I'll take a look at the personal statement. Otherwise, I'm unlikely to give it much more than a quick glance.

- Last come the letters of recommendation. The vast, vast majority of them are quite positive, so I am looking both for subtleties in tone ("this student was great!" vs. "this student was A-MA-ZING!") and for specific distinguishing details ("this student received the highest grade in my class, by a mile" or "within 3 months of starting to work with me, this student was operating at the level of a PhD student") that add information beyond what I already got from the transcript and test scores. I pay some attention to the academic rank and seniority of the letter writer (the statement "this is the best student I've ever worked with" means more coming from a senior full professor than a second-year assistant prof), but don't recognize most of the names so am not often "impressed" by the stature of letter writers.

- Now, it comes time to score the application. At our institution, we use a categorical scoring system with options ranging from "I strongly object to admitting this applicant" to "I strongly support admitting this applicant". In assigning the score, I keep in mind the total number of people we are likely to admit (which is determined by projected available funding, and discussed before admissions decisions are made), and I try to give "supportive" scores to about this number of applicants. I keep a mental note of applicants that I'd like to discuss with the full admissions committee, particularly if I suspect my score is likely to be substantially higher than my colleagues'.

- The last step involves the admissions committee discussing scores and ranking applicants. Our initial ranking is based on the average score assigned by committee members, and from this we can usually identify some "obvious" admits and rejects. Then, we discuss the remaining applicants and determine our final ordering. 

[AndrewYao]

Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on your "given standard" of an applicant that you would admit? I would certainly appreciate it if you could also read my profile evaluation post. 

[statfan]

When you go over the transcript, how would you assign weights to courses from different disciplines? (eg. from 1-10 scale with 10 being the most important)

1. Calculus/Linear Algebra

2. Real analysis/Measure theory

3. Other pure math courses (eg. geometry/abstract algebra)

4. Undergraduate statistics courses

5. Graduate statistics courses

6. Courses from other quantitative disciplines (eg. actuarial science/physics/chemistry/finance)

7. Electives

8. CS courses

Edited December 6, 2017 by statfan

[Taheel]

Do you ever see applications that you recognize having read from Grad Cafe?

[cyberwulf]

19 hours ago, Taheel said:

Do you ever see applications that you recognize having read from Grad Cafe?

Yep, that does happen from time to time.

[cyberwulf]

On 12/6/2017 at 2:01 PM, AndrewYao said:

Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on your "given standard" of an applicant that you would admit? I would certainly appreciate it if you could also read my profile evaluation post. 

It's hard to elaborate more on that, since as noted in my post the evaluation involves balancing a number of factors. 

[cyberwulf]

22 hours ago, statfan said:

When you go over the transcript, how would you assign weights to courses from different disciplines? (eg. from 1-10 scale with 10 being the most important)

1. Calculus/Linear Algebra

2. Real analysis/Measure theory

3. Other pure math courses (eg. geometry/abstract algebra)

4. Undergraduate statistics courses

5. Graduate statistics courses

6. Courses from other quantitative disciplines (eg. actuarial science/physics/chemistry/finance)

7. Electives

8. CS courses

It's hard to give numbers to these, since the importance is very context-dependent. For example, if someone has taken (and done well in) a number of advanced mathematics courses, then a B- (say) in Calc 3 or Linear Algebra isn't a big deal. On the other hand, if that's the most advanced math on your transcript, then it's much more of a concern. 

Some general rules, though:

- The real analysis grade is very important, particularly if it's your most advanced class. It's not uncommon to see students with high grades in Calc and Linear Algebra get a low grade in RA, so if you do well that will help you. 

- Other pure/advanced math courses play a similar role to analysis; so, for example, getting A's in Abstract Algebra and Topology might help you overcome a lower RA grade.

- Statistics courses outside of probability and math stat don't carry much weight, whether they're taken at the undergraduate or graduate level. The one exception is for students who are doing a Masters (or taking Masters-level courses) at a highly-ranked program.

- Non-math quantitative courses can help bolster your application if you're light on math; otherwise, they don't carry much weight.

- Electives courses generally don't matter much unless there is something very concerning there; for instance, you got low grades in all the classes that involved writing.

[StatsG0d]

It's nice to see that the the standard "we take a holistic approach to the application review process" is in fact true and not just something written down to keep the applicants at bay. Thanks for sharing this, @cyberwulf

[stat18app]

Thank you for sharing these useful pieces of information. I am curious how the "faculty of interest" or "faculty consulted" listed in an application influences the reviewing process. Will an empty list of "faculty consulted" negatively influence the application, and does "faculty of interest" reduce the possibility that this application can be carefully reviewed by other faculty members?

Edited December 8, 2017 by stat18app

[jrockford27]

Do you mean, by "faculty consulted", the extent to which the applicant has corresponded with faculty members?  It really shouldn't matter at all.  I didn't get into any of the programs where I corresponded with faculty, and the programs I was accepted to I never corresponded.

It's a good idea to have "faculty" of interest though, because it helps you make the case as to why the department is a good fit for you.

[statfan]

On 07/12/2017 at 4:10 PM, cyberwulf said:

It's hard to give numbers to these, since the importance is very context-dependent. For example, if someone has taken (and done well in) a number of advanced mathematics courses, then a B- (say) in Calc 3 or Linear Algebra isn't a big deal. On the other hand, if that's the most advanced math on your transcript, then it's much more of a concern. 

Some general rules, though:

- The real analysis grade is very important, particularly if it's your most advanced class. It's not uncommon to see students with high grades in Calc and Linear Algebra get a low grade in RA, so if you do well that will help you. 

- Other pure/advanced math courses play a similar role to analysis; so, for example, getting A's in Abstract Algebra and Topology might help you overcome a lower RA grade.

- Statistics courses outside of probability and math stat don't carry much weight, whether they're taken at the undergraduate or graduate level. The one exception is for students who are doing a Masters (or taking Masters-level courses) at a highly-ranked program.

- Non-math quantitative courses can help bolster your application if you're light on math; otherwise, they don't carry much weight.

- Electives courses generally don't matter much unless there is something very concerning there; for instance, you got low grades in all the classes that involved writing.

Thank you very much, this is much more reassuring as I got mostly A+ and A's in my core math and stat courses. I have a few very low grades in finance/actuarial science though. I just done my real analyisis exam and I don't feel that I did very well. I am afraid that I may end up with high 70s or low 80s. In many Canadian universities, we do percentage grading, so that would correspond to B+ or A-  (77-79 B+ 80-84 A- 85-89A 90-100 A+). Should I take Lebesgue Integration to remedy this? Would admission committees refer to the grading scheme on transcript to interprete the percentage grade as high 70s/low 80s does not sound impressive at all.

Edited December 9, 2017 by statfan

[cocod17]

My undergraduate school lists both Probability Theory and Statistical Inference as Mathematical Statistics I & II. Will the committee be aware of this situation? Thank you very much.

[bayessays]

3 hours ago, cocod17 said:

My undergraduate school lists both Probability Theory and Statistical Inference as Mathematical Statistics I & II. Will the committee be aware of this situation? Thank you very much.

This is common.  You need probability as part of math stat, so they'll definitely understand.

[cocod17]

44 minutes ago, bayessays said:

This is common.  You need probability as part of math stat, so they'll definitely understand.

Thank you very much!

[CHBE_M]

How about international students who are externally funded to pursue their Ph.D by their employer. If I find a potential advisor who agrees to have me, and If my Ph.D is fully supported financially for the entire duration (5 years) but  GPA and GRE are on the lower end. How does the admission commitee view this?

 

[cyberwulf]

1 hour ago, CHBE_M said:

How about international students who are externally funded to pursue their Ph.D by their employer. If I find a potential advisor who agrees to have me, and If my Ph.D is fully supported financially for the entire duration (5 years) but  GPA and GRE are on the lower end. How does the admission commitee view this?

 

This is a pretty unusual situation, but coming with your own funding changes the admissions calculus somewhat. Provided the program has the capacity, they may be more willing to admit you provided they think you can successfully complete the degree.

[loffire]

@cyberwulf I'm guessing you probably get flooded with "what are my chances" queries so I hope this comes across as slightly different. I graduated from University at Buffalo with a GPA of 3.62. Seeing how it isn't anywhere near perfect, I am wondering if it is hurting my chances and if my GRE scores of 162V 160Q 4.0W do salvage it or if there is something else I should be doing to help my portfolio. Apart from that I do have research experience over 3 different institutions spanning about 4 years (as locum, RA and RA+Lab manager managing the other RAs), have had poster presentations, talks and (sadly only) one publication (though I have a few more currently under prep).

Should I perhaps be looking to do my master's first to help my undergrad GPA? any advice is greatly appreciated!

[statfan]

2 hours ago, loffire said:

@cyberwulf I'm guessing you probably get flooded with "what are my chances" queries so I hope this comes across as slightly different. I graduated from University at Buffalo with a GPA of 3.62. Seeing how it isn't anywhere near perfect, I am wondering if it is hurting my chances and if my GRE scores of 162V 160Q 4.0W do salvage it or if there is something else I should be doing to help my portfolio. Apart from that I do have research experience over 3 different institutions spanning about 4 years (as locum, RA and RA+Lab manager managing the other RAs), have had poster presentations, talks and (sadly only) one publication (though I have a few more currently under prep).

Should I perhaps be looking to do my master's first to help my undergrad GPA? any advice is greatly appreciated!

What is your math background and how did you do in your math/stat courses? I am asking because this is much more relevant than your overall gpa. If you did uniformly well (mostly A's) in your math courses, then you may stand a chance of getting into good schools. Otherwise, admission committees may doubt your ability to do actual math given your low gre score and you may be weeded out in the screening process in some schools.

Edited December 27, 2017 by statfan

[confused_girl]

Thanks for doing this, @cyberwulf !

When applying to a AMATH department for PhD, is it considered a negative if the applicant is from an engineering background(like EE or CS) and has several years work experience in a EE field?

Can the application be made stronger if the Subject GRE scores are good? Is Subject GRE a good indication that the applicant can handle certain Math undergrad courses well?

I understand that the Subject GRE is not heavy on the proof-and-theorem side, but it counts for something right? 

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[spamhaus]

On 12/6/2017 at 12:41 PM, cyberwulf said:

- First, I get a feel for what type of applicant this is. There are five common types: domestic students coming from undergrad, domestic students attending Masters programs, international students attending US undergrads, international students attending US masters programs, and international students attending undergrad in their home country. I'll also note the institution(s) attend(ed). This sets the expectation for what I will be looking for in the application.

How does your focus change when you review a non-traditional applicant? For example I am in my mid-thirties and have worked for over a decade in leadership positions. My undergrad GPA isn’t the greatest (3.26), mainly because I was young and immature at the time (often skipped classes and bailed on homework) and my Quant GRE isn’t as strong as I would have wanted (Q: 164, V: 163, AWA: 6).

I have since matured and have some pretty stellar LORs. In the summer I took the initiative to seek a professor to conduct research with to bolster my application (he is a recent PhD grad who is at a low ranked school, but is very eager to work with me; he basically guaranteed me a PhD admission and additionally offered to host me as a visiting researcher for Spring 2018). I rather have my hopes set much higher and have applied to a number of top schools, but made sure to cover my bases by applying to 15 schools. 

I made sure to highlight these points in my SOP. Am I overreaching or would my application be well considered?

[speowi]

4 hours ago, waltzforzizi said:

This is interesting. Thank you @cyberwulf

My only question is: Is the order in which you view the materials listed on the grad admissions page?

My department/field specifically states, on most sites, that the ranking is as follows:

SOP

Personal History paper ( if applicable)

Letters of Rec

Transcripts

GRE scores

it would be sad if they followed the order you did without looking at the SOP and letters of recommendation first. That seems unfair in my opinion.

It might be worth noting that this thread is in the Mathematics and Statistics sub-forum and that @cyberwulf is a biostatistics professor speaking about their own method of evaluation. Based on your profile, it seems like you are applying to anthropology or archaeology programs. I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to review applications differently.

[waltzforzizi]

11 minutes ago, statsapplicant said:

It might be worth noting that this thread is in the Mathematics and Statistics sub-forum and that @cyberwulf is a biostatistics professor speaking about their own method of evaluation. Based on your profile, it seems like you are applying to anthropology or archaeology programs. I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to review applications differently.

Oops, how stupid of me. I will delete the reply. Thank you

[speowi]

1 minute ago, waltzforzizi said:

Oops, how stupid of me. I will delete the reply. Thank you

Not at all! It's easy to overlook which sub-forum a post is in. Good luck with your admissions cycle!

[berstat]

Thanks so much for sharing this info!

One thing I was surprised by was that you didn't really mention undergraduate research experience as a major discriminating factor. Is this fair? More specifically for my case, should one/two semester(s) and one summer of research experience be sufficient for a competitive application? Would this be more or less true even for top programs?

If you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit further, I'd also be curious to hear how the "type of applicant" (domestic/international in US/etc) "sets the expectation for what [you] will be looking for in the application". Personally, I'm an international student that did undergrad in the US.

[Gauss2017]

What does it take to get into a top 10 program?  My GPA is 3.65. MY GRE is in 90th percentile range.  I have taken lots of math classes including RA in HS and grad level math classes in college.   I have taken a number of grad level stats classes.  Is that enough?