next »

[nocalgirl]

Another thread on advising over the summer reminded me of this...  Perhpas because of the economy, our grad program saw a huge increase in the # of applicants. Although our program is far from competitive to get into, we aren't able to accommodate them all--and most end up being rejected.

They are now e-mailing and calling me, one of the few faculty members in the program who are actually on campus over the summer, to find out why they didn't get in, what they can do to make us change our minds, why we don't like them, etc.--or just to vent in general.  Of course, there are formal appeal procedures outlined in the application form, but no one is reading...

Frankly, when I was applying for grad schools, I think my "default" expectation was not to get in. Sure, I had a 4.0 GPA and almost-perfect GREs. But I think I understood thoroughly that, from a pool of 100+ applicants, grad schools only took a few students, whom the schools thought presented a "good match."

By contrast, applicants these days appear to be under the impression that it is the "norm" to get into grad school, and it is the Institution's responsibility to justify why an applicant didn't get in...  The Univ. appears to concur w/ this mentality, becasue we are now required to outline the primary reason for rejection.

Has anyone else noticed this trend, or is it local to my Univ.? How would you deal w/ these inquiries? Frankly, I think they are wasting THEIR time and effort by refusing to move on...

[geogeek]

I have noticed this with some of the undergrads in my department.  There is an increasing number who did not put in a lot of effort in their first two or so years in the program and now have GPAs of around 2.8. The As and Bs are not in their major coursework.  Now, with only a few semesters left to go, these same students have suddenly decided that graduate school is where they want to be.  They seem surprised when I, as undergraduate adviser, gently point out that they might have a difficult time being admitted to most programs.  I suggest they step up their academic efforts (demonstrate that they've turned over a new leaf), let them know of some programs that they **might** get into, and also suggest they consider applying for entry-level jobs.  They do not step up their academic efforts, apply to graduate programs that are out of their reach, and are again surprised to find that they didn't make the cut.  And, yes, they are all told as freshmen and sophomores what it takes to get into graduate school.

In the case of my department, I think it stems from the fact that the undergraduates get to know the graduate students toward the end of the program.  The undergrads realize that the graduate students aren't all nerdy geeks and that they get to work on some pretty amazing projects.  The undergrads then see themselves as not that different, and assume they have obtained the same level of academic achievement as the graduate students.  "If not him/her, why not me?"  In general, this is a good thing, but as discussed above it can also lead to some rude awakenings.

[shrek]

We have both a master's and a Ph.D. program. The MA program receives about 250 applications for 30 slots. Many many students are well-qualified, but not all get in. That's what we tell them. Over and over.

[traductio]

In my department, we have what amounts to open-enrollment for both the MA and the PhD program. I find this frustrating, to say the least, but I also find that I'm junior faculty and that my best course is to STFU, or at least pick my battles carefully. I voice my concerns once, but I don't press the matter.

OP, I'm curious -- what kind of reasons do you give to the university for rejecting applicants? The safest we could come up with this time 'round was "incomplete application," even when there were more obvious problems ("can't figure out subject/verb agreement"; "GRE scores lower than my dog's IQ").

[mountainguy]

Good lord. I would have never dreamed of challenging grad school rejections when I was a college senior (in fact, I even contacted one of the programs that admitted me to ask if it had been a mistake!).

OP, I would expend as little energy as possible on these students. Even with your university's requirement that you let applicants know the reason for their rejection, I would be as brief as possible ("Unfortunately, our applicant pool this year was very competitive. Your cumulative GPA/GRE score/past research in the field did not measure up to theirs.") If they want to argue about it further, refer them to the appeals process. If it helps you to reduce the stress, don't feel obligated to respond to the phone calls or e-mails as soon as they come in. Pick one morning/afternoon per week to do it and be done with it.

Some of our snowflakes have expressed interest in my department's MA or PhD program, but most of them run away screaming when they learn that grad seminars require 200+ pages of reading per week and multiple papers in the 15-20 page range. Instead, as I've previously noted here on the fora, law school seems to be the post-bachelor's option du jour. These students will be in for a rude shock if they somehow manage to get in!

[anakin]

...

How would you deal w/ these [to find out why they didn't get in, what they can do to make us change our minds, why we don't like them, etc.] inquiries?

Simple. Just tell them, "You have not yet figured out and demonstrated that doing something right and well is difficult."

[nocalgirl]

Thank you, all, for your replies.  I suppose the "how dare you reject me?" mentality isn't unique to the applicants at our Univ.  In response to what someone asked about the reasons we indicate in the rejection letters... We are required to go beyond the "applicant pool being too large compared to the available seats" line.  The admin also doesn't like the "match" excuse.

So, we typically do the following--which I find exceedingly useless, misleading, and inaccurate:

* Low GPA/GREs. However, the applicants often re-apply a semester later, having "raised" their GPAs by taking some nonsense course at community colleges. Sure, your GPA went from 2.200 to 2.211, but that's still far from good enough. Alternatively, a lot of them come back and say, "I know someone who got in w/ lower GPAs/GREs than mine," etc. 

* Inadequate undergrad course sequence/preparation.   Still, many of them come back and ask whether they could make up those missing courses (or, most of the time, ask to have those courses waived altogether, because they think they are so special and they should get what they want).

Either way, what I find curious is that these admissions rubrics are designed by our colleagues in the Education Department--the same people who are against standardized exams. But they want clear, standardized "rubric" for admissions that "quantify" their candidacy? I just find that odd. How is this different from standardized testing...

[tinyboss]

When my first choice rejected me, I sent a polite inquiry.  I made it clear that I was requesting some information for my own benefit, as a favor, and not challenging the decision.  I got a helpful answer:

There's no glaring weakness in your application.  There just isn't as much strength as some of the other applications we've gotten. In a typical year, you might well have been accepted, but this year has been extraordinary, with about 10 applicants for every available slot, some of them with amazing records.
The schools that you come from generally do not impress, and most people who come from weak programs wind up struggling at First Choice. That could have been a serious knock against you, but you made up for it by taking graduate courses at Undergrad State and doing very well there.  Your Undergrad State professors were quite taken with you, and I expect that you *could* succeed here.

In other words, there wasn't a whole lot separating you from some of the people who did make our backup list, but you would have been too low on the list to have a realistic chance of getting an offer late.

I was very grateful to the DGS for taking the time to look over my application and give detailed feedback.  On the other hand, I sent the same inquiry to Second Choice and got a very perfunctory brush-off (and I left it at that).  I hope it was because they were busy, and not because the question was annoying.  For those of you who are involved in these decisions, is a polite request for information on a rejection appropriate?

PS: I got a nice fellowship at Other Second Choice, so it turned out fine in the end!

[goldenapple]

I think you would be justified in creating a boilerplate message to send to anyone who inquires. It can be very polite, but you can explain that you can't review every single candidate for the same reason you couldn't accept all the qualified candidates: time and resources are limited. Some people had strong candidacies and might do well to reapply. Others did not meet minimum requirements for GPA and preparation. They should speak to their advisers and review their own materials, etc, etc. best of luck in future endeavors, etc. . .

[mountainguy]

Nocalgirl, it sounds like your admissions process is being micromanaged by admincritters. That sounds both stressful and frustrating. Who oversees the appeals process?  Is it the faculty in your department or the admins? If it's the former, I would continue to refer students to that.

Is it possible to set the bar very high for admissions standards and to simply make case-by-case exceptions for applicants who demonstrate exceptional promise? For example, "Applicants must generally have a cumulative GPA of 3.5 in Basketweaving Studies and GRE verbal/math scores of 650 or above. The admissions committee reserves the right to waive these requirements for applicants who demonstrate exceptional promise for making meaningful contributions to the field, as evidenced by sustained engagement in scholarly activities of the National Basketweaving Studies Association or recommendation of extraordinary potential by the graduate faculty in Basketweaving Studies."

In the end, the standards will always be somewhat slippery, and if your administration isn't willing to back you up, then it sounds like you have bigger problems on your hand than just a weak application pool. Are the tenured faculty in your department aware of this problem?

[nocalgirl]

Tinyboss:

Interesting...but weren't you already aware of this when you applied to grad school?  I certainly was, not just because I knew getting into grad school is a privilege rather than a right, but also because this is all described in most grad school applications I have seen. 

At our Univ., we get 100s of grad applicants--and we are faculty members, not admissions office personnel. So, I cannot frankly take the time to "humor" rejected applicants who need to be told how sorry we are and how they should have gotten in--and how life is unfair. They shouldn't have to hear that from us.

Also, this type of response prompt some of OUR rejected applicants to come back and say, "Look, you said I am an excellent student and I should have been accepted. I am taking you to court."  It has happened to us several times apparently, and that is exactly why we are NOT allowed to use this particular reason for rejection in our official rejection letters.

[tinyboss]

At our Univ., we get 100s of grad applicants--and we are faculty members, not admissions office personnel. So, I cannot frankly take the time to "humor" rejected applicants who need to be told how sorry we are and how they should have gotten in--and how life is unfair. They shouldn't have to hear that from us.

I was asking not to feel better about myself but in case I would be reapplying in the future.  I wrote that, but must have edited it out when I revised my post on preview.  Still, you've answered my question--you guys are incredibly busy during admissions season and often don't have time for such queries.  Thanks.

Also, this type of response prompt some of OUR rejected applicants to come back and say, "Look, you said I am an excellent student and I should have been accepted. I am taking you to court."  It has happened to us several times apparently, and that is exactly why we are NOT allowed to use this particular reason for rejection in our official rejection letters.

Wow. 

[kaysixteen]

How much ignorance about grad school realities in general is still normative in undergradland?  I was mightily ignorant about these myself, 20 years ago, and most of my professors, who were then 15-30 years removed from grad school themselves, offered little if any serious assistance or info.  Perhaps this has changed at ExclusiveAlmaSLACer.  Perhaps not, too.  What certainly HAS changed is the number of kids getting a BA, the decreasing societal value of that degree, and the number of students who will be wanting and expecting grad school admission.  It should therefore probably not surprise that many of these kids will view 'getting into grad school' as just part two of 'getting into college', and since virtually any US hs grad today can get into some college somewhere, well....

[mountainguy]

Nocalgirl, based your last post, it sounds to me like your program is dealing with some  serious issues that truly go beyond just a bad pool of applicants. I would have a candid conversation with your admincritters to understand (a) what their vision is for the graduate program, and (b) how they prefer that faculty deal with aggrieved rejectees. If you aren't comfortable initiating such a conversation yourself, I would ask a senior colleague for help. It's vital that you understand what is they want you to do in these situations.

While I hate to sound like a broken record, let me repeat a question from one of my earlier posts . . . what happens to rejectees who go through the formal appeals process you mentioned in your original post? If that process can be counted on to uphold faculty decisions, I would continue to refer students to it.

[traductio]

It seems like the students your program has rejected fundamentally misunderstand the nature of graduate school admissions -- meeting the minimum requirements does not guarantee admission. (Seems like your administration misunderstands the admissions process too, or, better yet, understands all to well the litigious nature of the students who don't quite get it.)

It strikes me that this misunderstanding is symptomatic of the same mentality that leads my students to believe that if they make the specific corrections I recommend on a paper, they'll be producing A-quality work.

I don't know what the solution is, however, although I can really sympathize with your frustration.