What The Heck Are We All Doing?

[ShewantsthePhD101]

I did a bad thing. I looked up the acceptance rates of the universities I'm applying to for PhD. My best shot is a little over half. 56%. Next best shot is 1 in 4... the numbers only decline from there. Any program with decent funding is insanely competitive these days. Is it even actually possible to be good enough? My top choice program has a 9% acceptance rate. Even with stellar grades and scores and LORs... how can anyone be better than 91% of any given applicant pool?

[breemartini]

Whenever I start to get stressed about acceptance rates/the general difficulty of PhD programs/the question of whether or not this is all worth it, I stop and remind myself that, well, of course these programs are competitive. You said it yourself: "any program with decent funding is insanely competitive." Admitted individuals are being paid and supported (often with housing, healthcare, etc.) to perform intellectual labor. All fields, including those that are outside academia, are competitive. Corporate America is competitive.

I think that most students who are really cut out for PhD programs will find a way to get a decent deal from a school that will fit them well. It will take some longer to gain access to the needed resources/experiential opportunities that will ultimately make them one of the most desirable applicants in the pool for a given program.

Of course, the programs you apply to will play a large role in your likelihood to receive an acceptance/awards package. If you are dead-set on getting into an Ivy, you have to be prepared for the possibility of rejection. If your goal is to get into a department with faculty who are well-equipped to help you and your research, then you can worry less about the prestige/competitiveness of a given program. If you end up not getting into any programs (after giving it your best shot, perhaps for several admissions rounds), then you have to decide if/when you will move on. Even in that scenario, you will be leaving with an abundance of experience and skills that will make you competitive in other fields. 

Still, best of luck! Making it this far is an accomplishment in itself. 

[chocolatte_]

Think about the odds of getting a job for which 75, 100, or 250 people apply. The odds are never that great.

But it's also not true that you have a 1% chance of getting a job for which 100 people apply. Many people who apply for jobs aren't qualified for them, or they have resumes that are a total mess, or are disqualified in some other way. It's the same for grad school. One of our former interns excitedly told me she'd applied to a graduate program, and I asked her how she did on the GRE: "The what?" And yeah, the program required the GRE. So don't assume everyone has equal odds of getting accepted.

Also many, many people apply to the highly competitive programs, which the programs themselves encourage (writing "our program is extremely competitive" for an overachiever is like waving a red flag in front of a bull it seems) to keep their admits percentage low. Same thing they do for undergrad admissions.

And last point, most of these programs want you to succeed, so they admit people who they feel are a good fit, and who can manage the work, and who faculty can adequately advise, and they don't admit too many of us so they don't get overwhelmed and you don't lose out. Of course they turn away good people. Perfectly good people. And again, well, see those job stats. It's that way your whole life. But if you're talented and competent you have a good road ahead, wherever it might be.

Edited December 19, 2017 by chocolatte_

[pataka]

10 minutes ago, chocolatte_ said:

But it's also not true that you have a 1% chance of getting a job for which 100 people apply. Many people who apply for jobs aren't qualified for them, or they have resumes that are a total mess, or are disqualified in some other way. It's the same for grad school. One of our former interns excitedly told me she'd applied to a graduate program, and I asked her how she did on the GRE: "The what?" And yeah, the program required the GRE. So don't assume everyone has equal odds of getting accepted.

This is an excellent point. And a funny anecdote; I feel a little bad but thanks for the laugh 

[khigh]

20 minutes ago, chocolatte_ said:

Think about the odds of getting a job for which 75, 100, or 250 people apply. The odds are never that great.

But it's also not true that you have a 1% chance of getting a job for which 100 people apply. Many people who apply for jobs aren't qualified for them, or they have resumes that are a total mess, or are disqualified in some other way. It's the same for grad school. One of our former interns excitedly told me she'd applied to a graduate program, and I asked her how she did on the GRE: "The what?" And yeah, the program required the GRE. So don't assume everyone has equal odds of getting accepted.

Also many, many people apply to the highly competitive programs, which the programs themselves encourage (writing "our program is extremely competitive" for an overachiever is like waving a red flag in front of a bull it seems) to keep their admits percentage low. Same thing they do for undergrad admissions.

And last point, most of these programs want you to succeed, so they admit people who they feel are a good fit, and who can manage the work, and who faculty can adequately advise, and they don't admit too many of us so they don't get overwhelmed and you don't lose out. Of course they turn away good people. Perfectly good people. And again, well, see those job stats. It's that way your whole life. But if you're talented and competent you have a good road ahead, wherever it might be.

I keep reminding myself about the first part.   Last year, the program I applied to this year got 100 applications and admitted 26.  That's 26%, but how many of the 74% didn't make the GPA or GRE cutoff? How many can't write or haven't taken history courses outside the gen ed requirements?  I'm still nervous, but it's different when you know you made the basic cutoff.  A 1/3 chance feels better than 1/4, though I know there isn't much difference.

[01sonal]

What was the acceptance rate of your undergrad institution? I'm sure nowhere near 56%, and yet you still got in, didn't you? You did it then and you will do it now. You are capable. You've demonstrated it through getting into an undergrad institution, completing your Bachelor's degree (which is a huge accomplishment in and of itself), doing well enough on the GRE, amassing research experiences and if applying for clinical programs, completing the relevant clinical experiences. You have enough foresight to be on a forum like Grad Cafe to read about other people's experiences and shape your own. Whatever is meant to happen will happen. A lot of getting into grad school is simply having a good match in research interests with your POI. That goes a lot farther than you think! You'd be surprised at the number of folks who apply without actually having research interests that match with even a single faculty member in their desired program. 
 

P.S. - 56% admittance is great; you have over a one in two chance of getting into that program! Don't sweat! 

Edited December 20, 2017 by 01sonal

[ShewantsthePhD101]

10 hours ago, chocolatte_ said:

Think about the odds of getting a job for which 75, 100, or 250 people apply. The odds are never that great.

But it's also not true that you have a 1% chance of getting a job for which 100 people apply. Many people who apply for jobs aren't qualified for them, or they have resumes that are a total mess, or are disqualified in some other way. It's the same for grad school. One of our former interns excitedly told me she'd applied to a graduate program, and I asked her how she did on the GRE: "The what?" And yeah, the program required the GRE. So don't assume everyone has equal odds of getting accepted.

Also many, many people apply to the highly competitive programs, which the programs themselves encourage (writing "our program is extremely competitive" for an overachiever is like waving a red flag in front of a bull it seems) to keep their admits percentage low. Same thing they do for undergrad admissions.

And last point, most of these programs want you to succeed, so they admit people who they feel are a good fit, and who can manage the work, and who faculty can adequately advise, and they don't admit too many of us so they don't get overwhelmed and you don't lose out. Of course they turn away good people. Perfectly good people. And again, well, see those job stats. It's that way your whole life. But if you're talented and competent you have a good road ahead, wherever it might be.

That's a very helpful thought. Thank you. I am as prepared as I can possibly be. I've had my CV done for months, and my SOPs read/edited by current PhD students and my faculty recommenders . I genuinely feel like Brown's RCT PhD is an incredible fit for what I want to do, and I really hit it off with the faculty member I spoke with on the phone... which makes me want the program even more, and I'm just worried I've set my sights too high. Ivy seems unattainable. The other programs I've applied to I can make fit, but not as neatly, and I'm not nearly as excited for.

 

3 minutes ago, 01sonal said:

What was the acceptance rate of your undergrad institution? I'm sure nowhere near 56%, and yet you still got in, didn't you? You are capable. You've demonstrated it through getting into an undergrad institution, completing your Bachelor's degree (which is a huge accomplishment in and of itself), doing well enough on the GRE, amassing research experiences and if applying for clinical programs, completing the relevant clinical experiences. You have enough foresight to be on a forum like Grad Cafe to read about other people's experiences and shape your own. Whatever is meant to happen will happen. A lot of getting into grad school is simply having a good match in research interests with your POI. That goes a lot farther than you think! You'd be surprised at the people who apply without actually having research interests that match with even a single faculty member in their desired program. 
 

P.S. - 56% admittance is great; you have over a one in two chance of getting into that program! Don't sweat! 

My undergrad institution accepted people at  a 56% acceptance rate lol. Which I didn't know til I looked it up. My school had prestige in theology, but I've shifted gears to religious studies and no one will care about them. As a matter of fact, where I did my BA may be a bit of a deterrent. I'm doing my MA now, at a school with a 76% acceptance rate, but a much better known religion department... I just really don't want to wait another year.

[01sonal]

Oof, I'm sorry - my comment wasn't helpful in that case. I will add though that in my experience it really doesn't matter as much as you might expect if your undergrad wasn't prestigious in the field you're intending to go into. My undergrad wasn't and many of the undergrad institutions of other people in my graduate program aren't prestigious in our field either (psychology). What matters most is that you're able to sell your experiences, whatever they may be. An example I can give is that I was actually pre-med for most of undergrad and as a result had very little research experience in psychology, but I still got into a program in my field! 

Also, already having an MA under your belt will make you more attractive than candidates that may not have that, due to the experience you've already had with TAing and having completed a thesis by the time you matriculate into a doctoral program. 

In any case, as people above have already said, acceptance rates aren't a true reflection of your chances for a variety of reasons, including folks who haven't taken the GRE, or who have no research match, or who haven't fully completed their application due to missing LORs, etc. You've given things your best shot and that's really all you can hope for. I know it feels like the end of the world if you have to wait another year, but in the grand scheme of things, what's one more year? You can get an advanced position in a research lab, get some great work experiences, get involved in your community to show that you care about your research beyond the lab, and so on. One year isn't so bad even if right now it feels like it might be.

[LauraV]

Ug., kind of depressing. How would I look these things up exactly? 

[Carly Rae Jepsen]

Fair points made in this thread so far, but I have to say universities could be way more honest about the number of applications they receive and how many students they expect to admit each term, mean GRE scores, listing research areas professors are interested in, etc.

Some universities like NYU and Northwestern are very transparent, I've found. Others--well, the lack of info makes you want to apply.  

[khigh]

1 hour ago, Carly Rae Jepsen said:

Fair points made in this thread so far, but I have to say universities could be way more honest about the number of applications they receive and how many students they expect to admit each term, mean GRE scores, listing research areas professors are interested in, etc.

Some universities like NYU and Northwestern are very transparent, I've found. Others--well, the lack of info makes you want to apply.  

I applied to one program.  The only reason I know their numbers is because I live close to campus and have visited a few times and specifically asked about it.  I love the department and the uni, but it's frustrating.

[Oshawott]

On 12/18/2017 at 11:46 PM, ShewantsthePhD101 said:

I did a bad thing. I looked up the acceptance rates of the universities I'm applying to for PhD. My best shot is a little over half. 56%. Next best shot is 1 in 4... the numbers only decline from there. Any program with decent funding is insanely competitive these days. Is it even actually possible to be good enough? My top choice program has a 9% acceptance rate. Even with stellar grades and scores and LORs... how can anyone be better than 91% of any given applicant pool?

When you're looking at the base-rate acceptance, you're not looking at the profiles of those who apply and the number of people who apply. Everyone says they get a 'large number of quality applicants' which is true. But they don't really say how many aren't 'quality' either. Look at your profile. Look at the profile of students in the program. If they're similar, then its probably better than the 9% acceptance rate since you'd likely be at the top of their pool of applicants. At that point, it's not who's 'better' than the rest in terms of credentials, it's who is a better fit.

[ShewantsthePhD101]

I'm fairly confident I'm a good fit for my top program...but my gre writing is a little low. I'll need to retake it.

[Oshawott]

13 hours ago, ShewantsthePhD101 said:

I'm fairly confident I'm a good fit for my top program...but my gre writing is a little low. I'll need to retake it.

Is that the verbal or the analytic writing? AFAIK people don't really weight analytic writing as much since in grad school you'd be working with multiple authors who will edit your paper and you're asked about a topic you likely have no expertise. They'd also get a good sense of your writing ability from your LOI.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Oshawott

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

I didn't get in anywhere last cycle. It hurt and was disheartening, but I planned to reapply. I actually ended up applying to programs outside of my previous field because my research interests were a better fit there. This change, in addition to all the rejection last year, made me really nervous about my chances. I found out this week that I got into one of the top programs I was interested in and they sent an email saying I was a top applicant. 

The point is, my GRE, GPA, background, and LoRs didn't change between the app cycles. This year I made sure to apply to programs where I knew I was a great fit, talked extensively to profs that I wanted to work with, and polished my SoP until the damn thing was shining bright like a diamond. Ultimately, this proves to me what we (and the programs) always say: it's not so much about the numbers. It's about goodness of fit and your ability to articulate that fit. Don't worry so much about the acceptance rates and published stats (unless the program explicitly states cut-offs or something). 

[ShewantsthePhD101]

WOAH! CONGRATS!!!

[Sandmaster]

On 12/21/2017 at 8:56 PM, khigh said:

I applied to one program.  The only reason I know their numbers is because I live close to campus and have visited a few times and specifically asked about it.  I love the department and the uni, but it's frustrating.

Good luck! I just got into UMN a few days ago myself. You will make it!
 

9 hours ago, GreenEyedTrombonist said:

I didn't get in anywhere last cycle. It hurt and was disheartening, but I planned to reapply. I actually ended up applying to programs outside of my previous field because my research interests were a better fit there. This change, in addition to all the rejection last year, made me really nervous about my chances. I found out this week that I got into one of the top programs I was interested in and they sent an email saying I was a top applicant. 

The point is, my GRE, GPA, background, and LoRs didn't change between the app cycles. This year I made sure to apply to programs where I knew I was a great fit, talked extensively to profs that I wanted to work with, and polished my SoP until the damn thing was shining bright like a diamond. Ultimately, this proves to me what we (and the programs) always say: it's not so much about the numbers. It's about goodness of fit and your ability to articulate that fit. Don't worry so much about the acceptance rates and published stats (unless the program explicitly states cut-offs or something). 

Many congrats to you as well! I am so happy for you!!!

To OP, if it means anything, I was able to get into a decently selective programs with an absolutely horrid UG GPA. Luckily I did not completely bomb my GRE and my grad GPA was much much higher and related to my PhD program field. Strong letters of Recommendation and statement of purpose really help too. I honestly think it was a combination of these that allowed me to get into my one program so far and get interviews at an even more competitive (and prestigious) program. Hang in there, you can make it!

[Carly Rae Jepsen]

On 21/12/2017 at 9:56 PM, khigh said:

I applied to one program.  The only reason I know their numbers is because I live close to campus and have visited a few times and specifically asked about it.  I love the department and the uni, but it's frustrating.

Best of luck! I'd be going crazy if I had only applied to one program (at some point I considered just three, but I panicked), but in your case you showed them your interest so that should help. 

 

[ShewantsthePhD101]

Sandmaster... you've already had two interviews????

[Bayesian1701]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:19 PM, Carly Rae Jepsen said:

Fair points made in this thread so far, but I have to say universities could be way more honest about the number of applications they receive and how many students they expect to admit each term, mean GRE scores, listing research areas professors are interested in, etc.

Some universities like NYU and Northwestern are very transparent, I've found. Others--well, the lack of info makes you want to apply.  

I don't really understand why more programs don't provide more information.  I get that GPAs and GRE scores are not the only factor and if there is more than one person there is always an admitted applicant with a GRE or GPA  below (and above) the average.  I am applying to statistics programs and I want to quantify my chances but I really can't because I don't have enough data to create a meaningful estimate in most cases.  I also doubt that they make enough money on application fees  (after staffing a graduate admissions office, paying for application platforms, etc.) for that to be an incentive to not provide information.   I know that things change, but can they just tell me what happened the last few years?

[lemma]

On 12/22/2017 at 1:56 PM, khigh said:

I applied to one program.  The only reason I know their numbers is because I live close to campus and have visited a few times and specifically asked about it.  I love the department and the uni, but it's frustrating.

I was in a similar boat recently - I only applied to one program, and I was lucky enough to get in. Applying to one program can definitely sound brave, however, generally there is a good reason why people only apply to one program (in my case it was personal). I think that most of us in this boat have spent more time reaching out to the faculty to figure out our chances and fit, and have also spent a lot of time hashing out a good backup plan.

[khigh]

11 minutes ago, lemma said:

I was in a similar boat recently - I only applied to one program, and I was lucky enough to get in. Applying to one program can definitely sound brave, however, generally there is a good reason why people only apply to one program (in my case it was personal). I think that most of us in this boat have spent more time reaching out to the faculty to figure out our chances and fit, and have also spent a lot of time hashing out a good backup plan.

I moved up here for this program.  I wanted to experience a real winter before deciding if I want to live here for the next 5-7 years (or forever, which is 100% the plan now). I'm from the south (Oklahoma and Texas), so I hadn't experienced a real winter like up here. I love both outdoor activities and theater and Minneapolis has the most theater seats in any US city other than NYC. I'm also a sports fanatic and love baseball (Cubs, though I like the Twins too), hockey, football (skol!), and soccer.  I also wanted to be close to an international airport and have access to museums. I fell in love with the program and the campus since moving here.  I knew a lot about it before making the move because my undergrad advisor got his PhD here, but I needed to experience it. They also have a department that can support my Dutch studies, which you don't find many places.