TestMagic

gbea · 2009 November 5th, 03:06 PM

Several posters in here have made the comment that they didn't get in to the schools they applied to because they overreached with not enough safeties. They seem to make the comment that their letter of reference writers had encouraged them to aim this high, and I am wondering, as I am experiencing this precise phenomenon right now, if this is a general issue. I know that if I didn't read places such as this forum, and instead relied on what my professors told me my chances were at various places, I would probably get skunked this year.

I suppose this probably comes from the fact that the professors who we ask for references see us at our best. Or maybe standards have gotten higher over time?

Anyways, I would like to hear whether some of the more experienced and knowledgable posters here agree with this.

tm_guru · 2009 November 5th, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbea

Several posters in here have made the comment that they didn't get in to the schools they applied to because they overreached with not enough safeties. They seem to make the comment that their letter of reference writers had encouraged them to aim this high, and I am wondering, as I am experiencing this precise phenomenon right now, if this is a general issue. I know that if I didn't read places such as this forum, and instead relied on what my professors told me my chances were at various places, I would probably get skunked this year.

I suppose this probably comes from the fact that the professors who we ask for references see us at our best. Or maybe standards have gotten higher over time?

Anyways, I would like to hear whether some of the more experienced and knowledgable posters here agree with this.

I am one of those posters and you hit the nail on the head, your professors see you as one of the best students they have taught over the years, they think you are good enough for the top 10, and what is truly odd is that they can be correct while at the same time you can get unilaterally shut out of the top10.

What is often noted on the top programs websites is that they admit far fewer candidates than they would like to admit. That is, out of the applicant pool, they are reasonably confident a far greater number could be successful in their program than they can possibly admit.

So even though you are good enough for the top programs (as your letter writers correctly assert), you may not be admitted. So no matter what your professors say, apply broadly, and apply somewhere where you personally feel confident of admission.

gbea · 2009 November 5th, 04:43 PM

Thanks for the reply and the confirmation. It is just a slightly bizarre conversation to have with a professor, trying to argue that I am dumber than he thinks.

But I do see what you mean about capabilities. If I am talking to a prof from say, Princeton, and he thinks, "this guy could crack it at princeton", that might weigh more in his mind, than "this guy could get into princeton", which is a higher standard.

Gecko · 2009 November 5th, 05:19 PM

i see the same phenomenon at my side too~

HopefulFutureEcon · 2009 November 5th, 05:22 PM

I think a great deal of it depends on the school you currently attend. If the school offers a PhD in Econ, I think the profs are in a much better position to gauge your chances of admissions, as they have direct experience with actual PhD students and can compare you to them.

Also, not all professors maintain a good feel for what is going on with admissions these days at particular schools. I believe there is a critical age where professors can help you narrow down schools, but once they reach a certain age, they probably lose track of what is going on with the rest of the field. It's definitely hard to stay on top of it (as a great deal of time needs to be invested) and those that do maintain are huge resources.

Regardless, you need to take what they say with a grain of salt (and what is posted here, as well). Admissions prediction is imprecise at best and your professors only have a partial picture from which to judge you. You should always broaden the school list to include programs outside of the top 10, unless you have qualifications that make you far and away a lock to get into programs (like an letter of reference from a Nobel Laureate, plus an 800Q, and PBK from a high ranked school).

This is just my two cents (unadjusted for inflation).

untitled · 2009 November 6th, 05:49 AM

In situations like this, does my project help or hurt any? It is mostly meant for fun and to be seen as an additional resource to help. I would hope that letter writers would be a better guide than scores, especially as they are often the critical, hidden piece of information that is missing from my analysis, but maybe its not always true...

I'm only one applicant, and my results were poor relative to my hopes, but not out of line with what I could have expected based on other applicants in the past, and I'm happy with where I ended up. My letter writers were absolutely no help in deciding where to apply, however. I do wonder, though, how other people feel/felt during and after the application process while looking at the numbers. I mostly interpreted them as giving hope, even though that was too optimistic. Is that the normal response? Do I need more disclaimers? Is there anyway I can encourage participation of more "average" applicants?

Anyway, I truly believe that schools end up rejecting many applicants they wish they could accept. I did look at the question of where people who are rejected from any given school are accepted. I only look at old data, but the idea is to ask if anyone rejected by, say, Duke, was accepted by a peer institute (or better) such as Yale (the answer was yes).

Gecko · 2009 November 6th, 09:10 AM

@untitled: sometimes, maybe the letter writers do not find it convenient to comment on places as they have connections and don't want to be seen as influencing the process unfairly

Ludwig · 2009 November 6th, 11:14 AM

I found my letter of reference writers to also somewhat overstate where I could be placed. That could be of their impression of me as opposed to what my profile says, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitled

My letter writers were absolutely no help in deciding where to apply, however. I do wonder, though, how other people feel/felt during and after the application process while looking at the numbers. I mostly interpreted them as giving hope, even though that was too optimistic. Is that the normal response? Do I need more disclaimers? Is there anyway I can encourage participation of more "average" applicants?

I definitely hit a wave of discouragement as I looked at the numbers, simply because so many of the profiles had what I didn't - great GPAs, and lots of extra math classes. I was quite disappointed to learn that good GRE + research wasn't necessarily going to cut it for Top 30.

The numbers gave me hope for my safeties - but places I considered my target schools had numbers that were very discouraging to see.

By saying that you want to encourage more participation of "average" applicants, I'm guessing you're saying that your impression of the statistics is that they are above average. While I imagine a forum brings more enthusiasts and thus higher averages, I was wondering what kind of evidence you had to guide you to that (maybe based on the statistics the schools report, for example).

helloworld09 · 2009 November 6th, 11:39 AM

@ untitled : in a way your research provides a nice counterbalance to our professors' grand expectations

Also at least for me, seeing data confirming that school A is much harder to get into than school B and getting a feeling(albeit v vague and often confusing) of their degree of separation helps setting my target ranges. Thanks for the great DB!

@ ludwig : just my unscientific observations, but similar forums i've seen so far seemed to have at least two degrees of bias : (1) as you said it's often the motivated people who visit/comment/post, and (2) again among those motivated people, those relatively confident/comfortable with their good score/results are more willing to post them. .. on the other hand, i would expect truly exceptional people with perfect profiles not to bother with forums, which could create an opposite bias for the top schools..?

rogueeconomist · 2009 November 6th, 01:30 PM

Admissions at top programs have just gotten tremendously more competitive over the years. If you look at Robert Lucas' Nobel bio, you will see that he started out as a history grad student at Berkeley and then transferred to Chicago for an Econ PhD.

Even allowing for the fact that he did go to Chicago as an undergraduate (and he is a future Nobel winner), the idea that something like that could happen today is almost laughable. (He was a History major at Chicago, as well...)

Really, I think in his era, the main qualification for entry was a reputable undergraduate degree (of any type) and expressed interest. Even as little as a decade or two ago, admissions to top PhD programs may not have been this competitive.

2009 November 5th, 03:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
gbea I JUST got here. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 71	Do references cause us to aim to high? Several posters in here have made the comment that they didn't get in to the schools they applied to because they overreached with not enough safeties. They seem to make the comment that their letter of reference writers had encouraged them to aim this high, and I am wondering, as I am experiencing this precise phenomenon right now, if this is a general issue. I know that if I didn't read places such as this forum, and instead relied on what my professors told me my chances were at various places, I would probably get skunked this year. I suppose this probably comes from the fact that the professors who we ask for references see us at our best. Or maybe standards have gotten higher over time? Anyways, I would like to hear whether some of the more experienced and knowledgable posters here agree with this.

2009 November 5th, 05:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
HopefulFutureEcon meh Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 14	I think a great deal of it depends on the school you currently attend. If the school offers a PhD in Econ, I think the profs are in a much better position to gauge your chances of admissions, as they have direct experience with actual PhD students and can compare you to them. Also, not all professors maintain a good feel for what is going on with admissions these days at particular schools. I believe there is a critical age where professors can help you narrow down schools, but once they reach a certain age, they probably lose track of what is going on with the rest of the field. It's definitely hard to stay on top of it (as a great deal of time needs to be invested) and those that do maintain are huge resources. Regardless, you need to take what they say with a grain of salt (and what is posted here, as well). Admissions prediction is imprecise at best and your professors only have a partial picture from which to judge you. You should always broaden the school list to include programs outside of the top 10, unless you have qualifications that make you far and away a lock to get into programs (like an letter of reference from a Nobel Laureate, plus an 800Q, and PBK from a high ranked school). This is just my two cents (unadjusted for inflation). Last edited by HopefulFutureEcon : 2009 November 5th at 05:23 PM. Reason: stoooopeeed spelling

2009 November 6th, 05:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
untitled TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 531	In situations like this, does my project help or hurt any? It is mostly meant for fun and to be seen as an additional resource to help. I would hope that letter writers would be a better guide than scores, especially as they are often the critical, hidden piece of information that is missing from my analysis, but maybe its not always true... I'm only one applicant, and my results were poor relative to my hopes, but not out of line with what I could have expected based on other applicants in the past, and I'm happy with where I ended up. My letter writers were absolutely no help in deciding where to apply, however. I do wonder, though, how other people feel/felt during and after the application process while looking at the numbers. I mostly interpreted them as giving hope, even though that was too optimistic. Is that the normal response? Do I need more disclaimers? Is there anyway I can encourage participation of more "average" applicants? Anyway, I truly believe that schools end up rejecting many applicants they wish they could accept. I did look at the question of where people who are rejected from any given school are accepted. I only look at old data, but the idea is to ask if anyone rejected by, say, Duke, was accepted by a peer institute (or better) such as Yale (the answer was yes). _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ You might be interested in this analysis of past TM applicants results, which sorts acceptance and rejection results by school based on postings on TM.

2009 November 6th, 11:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
helloworld09 I JUST got here. Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 20	@ untitled : in a way your research provides a nice counterbalance to our professors' grand expectations Also at least for me, seeing data confirming that school A is much harder to get into than school B and getting a feeling(albeit v vague and often confusing) of their degree of separation helps setting my target ranges. Thanks for the great DB! @ ludwig : just my unscientific observations, but similar forums i've seen so far seemed to have at least two degrees of bias : (1) as you said it's often the motivated people who visit/comment/post, and (2) again among those motivated people, those relatively confident/comfortable with their good score/results are more willing to post them. .. on the other hand, i would expect truly exceptional people with perfect profiles not to bother with forums, which could create an opposite bias for the top schools..? Last edited by helloworld09 : 2009 November 6th at 11:48 AM. Reason: adding the other hand..

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 November 5th, 04:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
gbea I JUST got here. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 71	Thanks for the reply and the confirmation. It is just a slightly bizarre conversation to have with a professor, trying to argue that I am dumber than he thinks. But I do see what you mean about capabilities. If I am talking to a prof from say, Princeton, and he thinks, "this guy could crack it at princeton", that might weigh more in his mind, than "this guy could get into princeton", which is a higher standard.

2009 November 5th, 05:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
Gecko This user's posts are moderated. Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,078	i see the same phenomenon at my side too~

2009 November 6th, 09:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
Gecko This user's posts are moderated. Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,078	@untitled: sometimes, maybe the letter writers do not find it convenient to comment on places as they have connections and don't want to be seen as influencing the process unfairly

2009 November 6th, 01:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
rogueeconomist Within my grasp! Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 123	Admissions at top programs have just gotten tremendously more competitive over the years. If you look at Robert Lucas' Nobel bio, you will see that he started out as a history grad student at Berkeley and then transferred to Chicago for an Econ PhD. Even allowing for the fact that he did go to Chicago as an undergraduate (and he is a future Nobel winner), the idea that something like that could happen today is almost laughable. (He was a History major at Chicago, as well...) Really, I think in his era, the main qualification for entry was a reputable undergraduate degree (of any type) and expressed interest. Even as little as a decade or two ago, admissions to top PhD programs may not have been this competitive.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests