Jump to content
Urch Forums

About Profile Evaluations and Their Usefulness


Catrina

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

 

I haven't been spending that much time here recently for obvious reasons, and will probably only check this forum rarely for the rest of the year. However, I think that Chateauheart brought up an interesting point here, and I think that it is worth discussing:

 

I mean I really don't get why people without calc 1 go around giving authoritative-sounding career advice to other applicants. It's not a sensible nor decent thing to engage in, alright? I'm sure you'll be a good economist one day; but you're talking out of your a*s right now.

 

And this whole "profile evaluation" thing going on for the last few years is just silly, because realistically almost everybody posting in response is an undergrad and people who are pretty far away from applications on their own. That's why they're on this board.

 

Most people will benefit significantly more from reading old profile and results threads and figuring out what the successful candidates did to build up their profile, and to get a rough sense of competitiveness at every level, than from hundreds of these profile evaluation threads. And admissions questions/strategies/career advice are comprehensively laid out at the FAQs. These threads should really be closed unless they have specific and meaningful questions, so the occasional useful thread doesn't get drowned out.

 

I think that Chateauheart raises two somewhat separate but related questions that are worth considering:

 

1. Are profile evaluations useful?

2. Who should be commenting on profile evaluations?

 

This is an issue that I have thought about in the past, and here is my take on it:

 

1. I disagree with the idea that profile evaluations are not useful as a general rule. While I absolutely agree that people should read previous year's "Profile and Results" threads, and rely on those more than profile evaluations for decision-making, I still think that profile evaluations could be helpful. A profile includes many different factors, and it may be hard for an applicant to figure out where he or she stands from reading profiles and results alone, particularly since the applicant is likely quite biased about him- or herself and may have trouble seeing the flaws (or strengths) that would be evident to others. While the profile evaluators may have similar difficulty evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses in a given profile, at least they can provide a third-party prospective. This is particularly important for applicants coming from non-academic environments, other disciplines, or schools without PhD programs, who may therefore have limited access to advisors who are familiar with the process.

 

Additionally, even people who can get a pretty good idea of what they should do from reading the "Profiles and Results" thread may feel more confident in their application strategy if they could discuss it with others first. Before my second application season, I PMed someone knowledgeable with my updated profile to get an opinion on whether I was following a solid strategy, despite having clearly seen many other profiles and results by that point.

 

2. That said, I definitely agree that people should only comment on profiles that they are at least somewhat qualified to answer. I wouldn't necessarily say that means that they have to be admitted (or, more strictly, already attending) a program to meet that standard. For example, a current or future applicant may have received relevant information from a professor or current grad student that could be useful to the person asking the question, or possibly have learned some things from going through admission to a masters or from being a rejected past applicant. While I'm biased, of course, I do think that most of the advice I gave last year was at least somewhat reasonable.

 

I certainly agree, however, that there have been plenty of cases of people commenting on threads that they really do know nothing about, by either repeating things they heard from others or basically guessing, and I do think that is a serious problem with profile evaluations.

 

As for myself, at least over the past year I have made a point of only commenting on threads where I honestly felt that I had something constructive to add. Therefore, for example, I generally avoided commenting on international profile evaluation threads, unless there was some particular question in them that I was pretty sure I knew something about. Sometimes people have actually PMed me international profile evaluations, and generally I avoid giving anything other than very general answers for that reason. Similarly, I generally refrained from commenting on the threads of people who were targeting a totally different range of schools than I was, because I know that I am completely unqualified to distinguish between someone who is likely to get into Harvard/MIT and someone who is likely to have Penn or Columbia as his or her highest-ranked admission. I would have said something if the range of schools seemed entirely incorrect (like someone with a bunch of Cs in math aiming for MIT, or someone with a near-perfect profile targeting schools ranked 50-70), but usually not otherwise.

 

 

Anyway, these are my current thoughts on the issue. I'm curious to see what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

I haven't been spending that much time here recently for obvious reasons, and will probably only check this forum rarely for the rest of the year. However, I think that Chateauheart brought up an interesting point here, and I think that it is worth discussing:

 

Appreciate the initiation of this type of discussion. I am a international student and expecting to apply for 2015 admission cycle for the first time. In my opinion, as a international applicant, profile evaluations are not exactly serve the purpose as for USA applicant. However, comments we get on our profiles always help to decide the possible improvements and suggestions for schools. Further, from my thread i was able to get some ideas of programmes from the people who are already in the programmes which was really helpful. Though the results from evaluations do not live up to the expectations it so a good job for international applicants giving accesses to more information otherwise not possible to get. It is also noted that profile results threads also do a great job.

Further, reading profile evaluation and other threads enhance our knowledge on application and admission process. Otherwise we will be only live with materials available in websites of universities.

Therefore, I think it is good to continue to go ahead with the way we discuss things here, well of course it my personal opinion and let me than everyone on the forum who do contribute to the current knowledge base on application and admission.

Have a great day !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue is not that specifically-tailored profile evaluations aren't potentially useful, it's that realistically most of the responses end up being so repetitive and/or inaccurate that the applicants will often get a better sense of the admissions game just by reading old threads on their own, which I'm guessing many of them don't exploit to the full potential.

 

I think the massive amount of profile evaluation threads on the front page is misleading new members into believing it's some necessary rite of passage. It's not.

 

Many profiles are quite difficult to evaluate, and thus remain empty until an over-enthusiastic new member decides to help out by spreading, essentially, hearsay. That's not an efficient mechanism. A better one might be to direct profile evaluation requests into a single stickied thread "Soliciting advice/evaluations" where viewers with similar backgrounds or specifically relevant information can respond and/or PM each poster individually. People won't feel obliged to reply; people with similar backgrounds will be more open to sharing selective information and experiences; and with one clear thread for this purpose we will move away from an equilibrium where we have a huge clutter of threads in the front page that drown out other threads and mislead new members into making similar ones.

 

The current roll call thread can serve this purpose; it doesn't seem very useful on its own in fact.

 

And further, if we take away the prominent role of profile evaluations, we'll probably also move into a new equilibrium where people with broad useful questions (that go beyond "am I aiming too high or low?") will ask them separately in clearly titled threads (e.g. "Is this math/econ course useful for economists?" "Should someone with such a career interest apply to PhDs?" "Is this type of RA work helpful?" "Do people applying from this country generally need to get a master's first?"). Which would enhance the diffusion of knowledge significantly and reduce the amount of time needed to read through different threads for most of the lurkers on the forum, especially for an audience that seems to come mainly from search, and which will provide a constant stream of discussions that we can eventually add into the FAQs.

Edited by chateauheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there are too many profile evaluations on the forum which probably have the effect of crowding out other good threads. And the average person posting a profile evaluation is likely to receive maybe 2-3 responses and it would be a shame if they based their application strategy on off-hand comments by often less-than-knowledgeable posters. At the same time, to those who are newcomers to the admission process, having their profiles evaluated can sometimes be very useful (in my case, at least, it made a significant difference to my application outcomes).

 

So here's what could be done:

1. Have a sub-forum dedicated to Profile Evaluations (I think having one single thread might get too messy, but I do agree with chateau that the main page is too cluttered at the moment).

2. In the FAQs (or in a new sticky forum on profile evaluations), explicitly encourage new posters, before posting their profiles, to look through (a) past Profiles and Results Threads (b) threads with advice tailored to particular classes of applicants (e.g. applicants from unknown US schools, or international applicants without masters degrees etc.).

3. It's difficult to solve the problem of people with little knowledge of the application process commenting authoritatively on other people's profiles. Most of the obvious ways to "filter" don't work (e.g. setting a minimum threshold on the number of posts merely rewards those are prolific). I think at the least, new posters need to be aware that everything they hear on this forum is not gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Profile Evaluations clutter up the forum early fall every year, they'll go away in a couple of weeks. It's no biggie.

 

On the second issue, it almost goes without saying that anyone basing their entire application strategy on what they read on here (never mind on a single particular profile eval thread) needs their head examined by a professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the second issue, it almost goes without saying that anyone basing their entire application strategy on what they read on here (never mind on a single particular profile eval thread) needs their head examined by a professional.

 

That's true, but what can plausibly happen is: 1) an applicant starts off with an inflated idea of his/her chances 2) this is reinforced by what their professors and peers (who may not have much of an idea about how admissions work) tell them 3) "minimum" admission requirements posted by schools are often laughably simple to achieve 4) the applicant then posts here, where a random person tells them they are a shoo-in for top 15. Voila!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, but what can plausibly happen is: 1) an applicant starts off with an inflated idea of his/her chances 2) this is reinforced by what their professors and peers (who may not have much of an idea about how admissions work) tell them 3) "minimum" admission requirements posted by schools are often laughably simple to achieve 4) the applicant then posts here, where a random person tells them they are a shoo-in for top 15. Voila!

 

The reverse can happen as well. Because most people here are at top 50 schools, someone with a good enough profile for the top 100 can get discouraged from applying altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Catrina and Chateauheart for bringing up what I think is a really important topic, especially at this time of year when there are a LOT of profile eval requests on the board.

 

My sympathies mostly lie with Chateauheart in this debate. I've voiced my skepticism before, and I'll say again that I think the majority of profile evals serve little purpose for this board. I think this forum serves an important role, which is why I lurk around even though I don't have time to contribute very often. In my mind, the greatest value of this forum is for:

 

1) students don't have access to professors who can give good advice,

2) as can be less intimidating to learn about the generalities of the admissions process for younger students who don't yet have econ professors to talk to, so that they can, say set themselves up to have appropriate math classes and maybe some RA experience in time for applications.

3) to help with stress, etc., and talk to others who are "enjoying" the same grad school admissions process.

 

I don't see profile evals as really furthering any of those aims. By the time you're a first semester senior figuring out where to apply, students had better have letter writers who they can talk to directly and probably give much better advice than this board. I understand that there are exceptions, but if your professor doesn't have a clue about how to go about applying to grad school, you have much bigger problems (e.g., I doubt they know how to write an effective letter either). [i will say that this aspect of the process really stinks and is deeply unfair, and it is great that this board is spreading the word that this problem can be fixed through masters programs/RA experience].

 

I am further skeptical of the quality of information disseminated through profile evals because:

 

1) advice (each of us, individually/collective wisdom) have received may or may not be appropriate for someone in very different circumstances

2) LORs have incredible sway in the process, and we have no idea what they'll say. (Just knowing your writer has a PhD from University [Y]/Nobel prize/whatever, tells us nothing about whether they will write you a positive or effective letter).

3) on this forum, in general, the more you know, the more time constrained you are, and the less likely you are to respond to profile evals.

 

I have no problem with people posting profile evals -- this is a quasi-anonymous internet forum, after all, and as long as people aren't being inappropriate and are vaguely on topic I don't think there's a need for regulation. But, I do wish people who tend to respond to profile evals would include some disclaimers, advice to look through other materials on the forum, etc. (Or maybe this could be accomplished with a sticky thread in a profile eval subforum).

 

To respond to Catrina's second question (who should be responding) I don't think there's a problem with anyone responding, either. But again, I wish people would provide just a brief discussion of who they are (Something along the lines of: I currently attend university [Y]/top [whatever] university, I am originally from [rough place], I [went to a PhD straight from undergrad/did a masters/whatever. Not sure that all of this is useful, but I think at least some of it would put advice into context.). And I also wish they'd cite sources better (not exhaustively, but things like, this is received wisdom on the board, I was in a similar circumstance and was told to do this by one of my LOR writers, whatever). I know all of this weakens anonymity, and I don't think it's reasonable or desirable (for length considerations) for posters to include all of it. But I do think this would really help put advice in context and help posters put responses to profile evals in appropriate context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a moderator, I, of course, want the forum to be as helpful for folks as possible.

 

However, as many of you know, I'm not a proponent of interventionism or regulation. I prefer such order to emerge. It's my job to keep the forum polite and on topic, outside of that I keep my hands off.

 

It is 100% not my job to decide that one person's utility from posting their profile should be weighed less than the utility of those who have to view the cluttered forum main page. If people didn't think profile evals gave them utility of some sort, they wouldn't post them. That utility may not be from the advice they get, but simply from participating in some way in the shared experience of applying to grad school. Whichever it is, I'm not going to rain on that parade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we're having this discussion. I think it's long overdue.

 

To respond to Catrina's second question (who should be responding) I don't think there's a problem with anyone responding, either. But again, I wish people would provide just a brief discussion of who they are (Something along the lines of: I currently attend university [Y]/top [whatever] university, I am originally from [rough place], I [went to a PhD straight from undergrad/did a masters/whatever. Not sure that all of this is useful, but I think at least some of it would put advice into context.). And I also wish they'd cite sources better (not exhaustively, but things like, this is received wisdom on the board, I was in a similar circumstance and was told to do this by one of my LOR writers, whatever). I know all of this weakens anonymity, and I don't think it's reasonable or desirable (for length considerations) for posters to include all of it. But I do think this would really help put advice in context and help posters put responses to profile evals in appropriate context.

Rep Power is supposed to serve this filtering role, but I don't know how much new posters actually pay attention to it. A more explicit system might be for more of us to list our status (applicant/PhD student/faculty) under our usernames, as you do. It seems, though, that the potential for trouble arises from people posting beyond their level of understanding, and the same people who do that are the least likely to volunteer information which would imply that they don't know what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, as many of you know, I'm not a proponent of interventionism or regulation. I prefer such order to emerge.

 

Newcomers follow observed social norms due to deep information asymmetry. Those norms on this forum, for the most part, happen to be misleading and does little to solve that information asymmetry. People with far more experience in the process should provide such information and to help nudge those norms in the right direction when possible. This isn't that different from a second-year PhD instructor telling his students it's time to stop focusing so much on coursework and start doing research.

 

It doesn't require extensive intervention and regulation, just a stickied thread and a helpful note here or there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to have a hands-off moderator. I mean, I've seen other forums where nanny moderators live pretty much die off after a while. In short, I strongly disagree any type of restrictions on the freedom of speech and of screwing around... :onthego:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newcomers follow observed social norms due to deep information asymmetry. Those norms on this forum, for the most part, happen to be misleading and does little to solve that information asymmetry. People with far more experience in the process should provide such information and to help nudge those norms in the right direction when possible. This isn't that different from a second-year PhD instructor telling his students it's time to stop focusing so much on coursework and start doing research.

 

It doesn't require extensive intervention and regulation, just a stickied thread and a helpful note here or there.

 

I see such nudging as your role, not mine. If those with more experience choose to provide nudges then I am all for it. However, I will not intervene to change established social norms unilaterally.

 

I ask you to lead by example by posting your concerns repeatedly in profile eval threads (so long as they do not derail or hijack the thread) and by repeating your concerns whenever appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...