For example, in 2003, the main UCLA program was unfilled by 6 spots, and UPenn was unfilled by 2.bigtuna said:I don't know specifically about Wash U but this happens every so often to programs who dont rank everybody or even a high percentage of the people they interview. I think programs generally rank a certain number of people based on historically how many people they have needed to rank in order to fill. Doesn't necessarily mean there is a big problem with a program.
It is true that our program, as well as Vanderbilt, did not fill all of its categorical positions last year.gee said:Is it true that Wash U didn't fill last year and if so does anyone have any insight into this.
I am not privy to the inner-workings of the interview cycle. But, based upon my discussions with our program directors, they would NEVER invite someone to interview for our program whom they would not consider ranking. Most of the candidates that were excluded after their interviews gave an indication to their interviewers that they would not be a good fit for our program (not academically oriented, not happy with living in St. Louis, etc...). This does not mean that they did badly on their interviews. Our program does place significant weight on interviewer evaluations. I imagine that most of the other programs that were mentioned do as well.Jamezuva said:I never quite understood this. Excluding the few people who "bomb" their interviews, why would a program invite anyone for an interview if they were not up to snuff? It seems very inconsiderate for a program to have applicants spend a significant amount of money, in a period where we have very little, to travel to it if they are not going to end up on the rank list at all.