(aka The Grad App equivalent of "will this be on the test?")
I have now had the initial fall semester classroom round of "will we be expected to know this?", "will this be on the test?", and "what do we need to know?". Predictably, this phase is followed by the early signs of the parallel fall grad applicant misconception that the number of lines on a CV are the only important thing. I'm sure not everyone will agree with the following, but let's get the discussion going!
In my opinion/experience regarding research-oriented (and many balanced) doctoral programs, here are common misconceptions regarding the numbers and my view on each:
Number of labs worked in. More is not better. What IS important is the quality of training and the depth of the experience. Depth: taking the initiative to conceptualize, design, and conduct a study, analyze the data, and then present the findings is more meaningful than running a ton of subjects, conducting a ton of interviews, or entering a ton of data, etc. If you can get meaningful (i.e., indicative of your ability to function as a PhD student) experience in one lab, great. Lots of my students have gone on to PhD programs after having "only" trained in my lab. It's also obviously a good idea to change labs if the research in Lab B is clearly a better fit for interests. I regularly see students trying to fill up their CVs with multiple labs (sequentially or simultaneously), but they're missing the point that WHAT is more important than how many, and they also run the risk of appearing to be unfocused and only superficially trained.
Number of years of research experience. More tends to be a bit better, to a point. For example, 2 years is usually better than 1, but it has nothing to do with the actual number. It generally is true that a high-quality, in depth training experience takes longer than one year, but I'm sure there are exceptions. However, something like 4 years is not necessarily better than 2, unless the 4 year person can clearly demonstrate productivity in skills and output in that time. Although in LORs I always state how long and in what capacity I have known a student, the actual content of the letter focuses on WHAT, not how long.
Number of letter writers. More is not better, and likely is worse. Some applicants get the idea than 4 or 5 letters is better than the requested 3. With rare exception, there is no way that all 4 or 5 writers can provide equally strong letters. Pick the 3 who are best able to speak to your potential for PhD programs (and try to make sure the writers understand what a PhD program entails, which is easiest if they all have PhDs rather than other degrees). I am continually amazed that my students don't seem to understand what goes in a letter, but suffice to say the strongest letters are those that are more detailed and specific regarding concrete skills, experience, and potential.
GRE scores. Minimum threshold/range (i.e., general range reported for your programs of choice) is great. Higher than threshold range is not better (unless nearly perfect, which is bizarrely impressive to some folks, considering GRE does not predict graduate performance). It IS better to use the time you would spend to try to bump your score by a few points on strengthening your research experience.
GPA. Minimum threshold/range is great. Higher is nice, but not at all necessary. I don't know a single faculty member anywhere who perceives a meaningful difference between, say, a 3.6 and a 3.8. Last two years usually is more important than first two. Having taken more potentially challenging courses and gotten slightly lower grades is better than taking obviously easy courses and getting higher grades. The point of your GPA is to demonstrate that you're able to do high-level college-level coursework, not that you were perfect in every course.
What do you guys all think? Applicants, are some of these news to you? Folks involved in admissions, your thoughts? Should I adjust my advising around some of these?
I have now had the initial fall semester classroom round of "will we be expected to know this?", "will this be on the test?", and "what do we need to know?". Predictably, this phase is followed by the early signs of the parallel fall grad applicant misconception that the number of lines on a CV are the only important thing. I'm sure not everyone will agree with the following, but let's get the discussion going!
In my opinion/experience regarding research-oriented (and many balanced) doctoral programs, here are common misconceptions regarding the numbers and my view on each:
Number of labs worked in. More is not better. What IS important is the quality of training and the depth of the experience. Depth: taking the initiative to conceptualize, design, and conduct a study, analyze the data, and then present the findings is more meaningful than running a ton of subjects, conducting a ton of interviews, or entering a ton of data, etc. If you can get meaningful (i.e., indicative of your ability to function as a PhD student) experience in one lab, great. Lots of my students have gone on to PhD programs after having "only" trained in my lab. It's also obviously a good idea to change labs if the research in Lab B is clearly a better fit for interests. I regularly see students trying to fill up their CVs with multiple labs (sequentially or simultaneously), but they're missing the point that WHAT is more important than how many, and they also run the risk of appearing to be unfocused and only superficially trained.
Number of years of research experience. More tends to be a bit better, to a point. For example, 2 years is usually better than 1, but it has nothing to do with the actual number. It generally is true that a high-quality, in depth training experience takes longer than one year, but I'm sure there are exceptions. However, something like 4 years is not necessarily better than 2, unless the 4 year person can clearly demonstrate productivity in skills and output in that time. Although in LORs I always state how long and in what capacity I have known a student, the actual content of the letter focuses on WHAT, not how long.
Number of letter writers. More is not better, and likely is worse. Some applicants get the idea than 4 or 5 letters is better than the requested 3. With rare exception, there is no way that all 4 or 5 writers can provide equally strong letters. Pick the 3 who are best able to speak to your potential for PhD programs (and try to make sure the writers understand what a PhD program entails, which is easiest if they all have PhDs rather than other degrees). I am continually amazed that my students don't seem to understand what goes in a letter, but suffice to say the strongest letters are those that are more detailed and specific regarding concrete skills, experience, and potential.
GRE scores. Minimum threshold/range (i.e., general range reported for your programs of choice) is great. Higher than threshold range is not better (unless nearly perfect, which is bizarrely impressive to some folks, considering GRE does not predict graduate performance). It IS better to use the time you would spend to try to bump your score by a few points on strengthening your research experience.
GPA. Minimum threshold/range is great. Higher is nice, but not at all necessary. I don't know a single faculty member anywhere who perceives a meaningful difference between, say, a 3.6 and a 3.8. Last two years usually is more important than first two. Having taken more potentially challenging courses and gotten slightly lower grades is better than taking obviously easy courses and getting higher grades. The point of your GPA is to demonstrate that you're able to do high-level college-level coursework, not that you were perfect in every course.
What do you guys all think? Applicants, are some of these news to you? Folks involved in admissions, your thoughts? Should I adjust my advising around some of these?
Last edited:
