So one of my POI, sent me a message on linkedin, because her response to my email went undelivered.
She said that she is retiring so wont be available for doctoral studies. But she encouraged me to apply to the college and said my CV shows that i am strong applicant for phd studies.
I have spent the last 12 hours wondering, whether she was just being nice to everyone who mailed her because she is retiring or she genuinely meant that my CV looks good.
What is this insane overthinking life
Does anyone know what tracks tend to be most competitive? I have no clue which tracks are more or less popular than others (I'm a micro OB applicant).
I think it's dangerous to compare different fields, or use simple metrics to evaluate that.
For example, I've seem some discussions about the quality of applicants, and opinions seem to be very biased. I remember someone saying that applicants in finance often have perfect GMAT quantitative scores while in marketing that's rare, so the quality of applicants in finance is higher than in marketing.
But, oftentimes, applicants in finance have perfect quantitative scores with low verbal scores, while applicants in marketing have high scores in both quant and verbal sections. Can people in finance really say their score is better than mine because they are better than me in one section, while I'm better in the other section?
So, I think that quality of applicants is very high overall, being hard to tell who are really better. The meaning of quality is different from field to field. In some fields, quality may be associated with strong mathematical background. While in other fields, quality may be associated with prior experience with experiments.
I see people making the mistake of misjudging the strength of an applicant just because of a low GMAT score, for example. One of the most successful applicants I have seen here at Urch didn't look that strong if you looked at their profile. Because some strengths are hard to see or evaluate, like the strength of the letters of recommendation.
Also, marketing has two clear different tracks (consumer behavior and quantitative marketing), and research interests can be quite narrower than in finance. It's not like marketing applicants compete with all other marketing applicants. Marketing applicants tend to be highly qualified for specific tracks and research interests. So, the number of applicants vs. the number of places available can be a really misleading metric.
If there are 100 marketing applicants in total, and you are applying to a quantitative marketing track to do empirical research about salesforce management, you are not competing with 99 marketing applicants. You may be competing against 5 applicants only, but they are all very well qualified for that. Competition for marketing applicants trying to do empirical research about digital marketing is very different from the competition for marketing applicants trying to do theoretical research about pricing.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)