Phd applicant review process?

[propsych]

Hi, does anyone have experience or know how this usually happens?

Do they all get hard copies or look at each applicant on a laptop? or does each committee member make a short list independently and then they confer? Does the electronic application we send in get pushed to the top by their system if certain criteria are met?

What do they tend to look at first? Would it make any sense to write a high gpa just to get the rest of ones application looked at? or is that just stupid and will annoy them?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

What do you mean by "write a high GPA?"

 

[WisNeuro]

You can "write" anything you want for a GPA, but you have to also include official transcripts. Lying in your application is a pretty good way to get your application tossed regardless.

 

[psych.meout]

You can "write" anything you want for a GPA, but you have to also include official transcripts. Lying in your application is a pretty good way to get your application tossed regardless.

Wait, is that what they mean?

 

[PsychPhDone]

Hi, does anyone have experience or know how this usually happens?

Do they all get hard copies or look at each applicant on a laptop? or does each committee member make a short list independently and then they confer? Does the electronic application we send in get pushed to the top by their system if certain criteria are met?

What do they tend to look at first? Would it make any sense to write a high gpa just to get the rest of ones application looked at? or is that just stupid and will annoy them?

It varies by program. One way to guarantee rejection is by lying about your GPA, as it is very easily verified by transcript.

Sometimes mentors review everyone who applies to them. Sometimes there is a culling by some factor, then mentor review. Sometimes a committee reviews first pass.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Hi, does anyone have experience or know how this usually happens?

Do they all get hard copies or look at each applicant on a laptop? or does each committee member make a short list independently and then they confer? Does the electronic application we send in get pushed to the top by their system if certain criteria are met?

What do they tend to look at first? Would it make any sense to write a high gpa just to get the rest of ones application looked at? or is that just stupid and will annoy them?

How what usually happens? File review? Completely dependent on the program's own processes and how many applications they receive.

I don't know if programs you are looking at use rolling admissions or not, but I can surmise from some experience how my committees have looked at these files. No one does hard copies anymore, even if the fully tenured professor is not technologically able.

We have to be sure you met our requirements. We check for your coursework and your grades/GREs. We read your letters of recommendation and your essays. We figure out if you are ready for a Ph.D. course of study with our program, including enough background for performing your own research and matching your interests with our own. Sometimes we will recommend you take a master's first.

We also see if the PI's have enough funding and bandwidth to mentor you. You really can do everything right and not get in because we don't have funding, or the PI is beginning the retirement process.

 

[Mama Bear]

Do they all get hard copies or look at each applicant on a laptop?

What are you wanting to know with this question?

 

[propsych]

You can "write" anything you want for a GPA, but you have to also include official transcripts. Lying in your application is a pretty good way to get your application tossed regardless.

Noted. thanks for the reply. my desperate logic hoped it would get me past the cursory look and into the actual substance of my application, making the inconsistency with the gpa not matter as much. Anyway, glad to have some voices of reason in the midst of chaos.

 

[propsych]

How what usually happens? File review? Completely dependent on the program's own processes and how many applications they receive.

I don't know if programs you are looking at use rolling admissions or not, but I can surmise from some experience how my committees have looked at these files. No one does hard copies anymore, even if the fully tenured professor is not technologically able.

We have to be sure you met our requirements. We check for your coursework and your grades/GREs. We read your letters of recommendation and your essays. We figure out if you are ready for a Ph.D. course of study with our program, including enough background for performing your own research and matching your interests with our own. Sometimes we will recommend you take a master's first.

We also see if the PI's have enough funding and bandwidth to mentor you. You really can do everything right and not get in because we don't have funding, or the PI is beginning the retirement process.

Thank you, this is helpful!

 

[Dazen]

To be brutally honest, if you’re considering lying on your application to increase your chances of admission, I’d be concerned about your ability to succeed in grad school (if what you’re lying to hide reflects your actual abilities), your research ethics, and, if you’re applying to clinical/counseling, what type of non-evidence based “advice” you might give clients.

 

[Sanman]

Noted. thanks for the reply. my desperate logic hoped it would get me past the cursory look and into the actual substance of my application, making the inconsistency with the gpa not matter as much. Anyway, glad to have some voices of reason in the midst of chaos.

The flaw in this logic (other than lying) is thinking anyone but you cares enough to overlook lying. Why would anyone overlook the inconsistency when there are equality qualified applicants that did not lie? I don't know you from Adam. If I did, you wouldn't need to lie to make me look at your application. That is called "connections".

 

[psycho1391]

my desperate logic hoped it would get me past the cursory look

Instead of being desperate why not work toward ways of increasing your GPA like a post bac?

 

[ClinicalABA]

In a "mentor model" Ph.D. program, you are typically applying to work with a specific professor. It will usually be indicated on the schools website which professors are taking on new student that year. You would indicate in your application materials who you want to work with (maybe a second professor too) and why you would be a good fit for that professor's lab. Whether or not a professor is taking new students is related not only to the number of current student's they mentor, but also to availability of grant or other funding to support their students financially. In such programs, there are usually some minimum department requirements (e.g., GPA; GRE scores) that have to be met and may be reviewed by a larger group of faculty, but often the final review and decision making is done by the individual mentors you apply to work with. There are cases where a mentor may have more really good candidates than slots and may pass on the application to another professor who they think would be a good fit for the applicant. There may also be some general review of all applicants being considered by the mentors so as to build an appropriately diverse cohort of students. I'm not sure if there are non-mentor model funded Ph.D.s out there. If so, I'm not sure how their admissions process works.

Don't lie about stuff. It will eventually come back to haunt you- if not this lie, but the inevitable future lies you will try because this one may have worked for you. Seriously- just don't do it (and also work to address whatever factors in you life led you to even consider lying in the first place).

 

[bcliff]

Hi, does anyone have experience or know how this usually happens?

Do they all get hard copies or look at each applicant on a laptop? or does each committee member make a short list independently and then they confer? Does the electronic application we send in get pushed to the top by their system if certain criteria are met?

What do they tend to look at first? Would it make any sense to write a high gpa just to get the rest of ones application looked at? or is that just stupid and will annoy them?

What's your GPA?

 

[cotn_psych]

Do you have an advisor or mentor who can provide a warm greeting or introduce you to potential grad mentors? If your GPA isn't great, then you need to be doing some networking. In a previous post on WAMC you have a lot of experience and probably enough to get you in the door. It seems like you are geographically limited to the east coast or highly selective places where you are likely to be successful if you already have established a relationship with the mentor. Otherwise, your may need to work on honing your interview skills and clarifying your personal statement so that it very specifically addresses the skills you'd bring to each lab and the specific reasons you have for wanting to join that lab.

 

[Freud’sMommy]

Don't listen to these people. What actually happens is 99% will be randomly discarded because we don't want unlucky people in our field. The remaining 1% are then at the mercy of lawn games. Last year my program taped applications to frisbees and played KanJam; whoever slotted a frisbee had to take in that applicant. One of my colleagues had to take in 5 students!

We then rejected and permanently banned applicants that lied on their materials.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

You have no clue what happens behind the scenes. Someone can be reading your application while taking a dump, you better pray its not constipation or diarrhea. In regards to what they look at first, I learned that this depends on the program. Some programs have a 3.0 minimum GPA set by the graduate school and so they will filter out applications before faculty can see them. At other programs they can go to the statements first. Typically the program will mention on their site if there is an admissions committee- where individual faculty have less control.