<p>hi im wondering about how grad school( in any field) break down their applicant pool into different catagories. Do they have a seperate catagory for grads of different tier schools.</p>
<p>Say for instance, Stanford phd math has 100 spaces for 200 applicants. moreover, say 100 of them came from MIT with a 4.0 gpa and(for arguments sake) perfect gre scores. now lets say that 100 with the same numbers came from "insert no name school". Will Stanford end up with 100 Mit grads. Or will they try to diversify by admitting say, 50 from each.</p>
<p>Applications are judged holistically. This isn't undergrad -- GPA and a good test score don't guarantee admission just like a lower GPA and subpar test score wouldn't necessarily sink it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will Stanford end up with 100 Mit grads. Or will they try to diversify by admitting say, 50 from each.
[/quote]
No, they don't try to diversify by school.</p>
<p>Of the ~65 people in my year in my program, 10 of us went to undergrad at MIT, and more were admitted but chose not to go. Actually, I don't know anyone from MIT who applied to my program but didn't get in.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that graduate schools, especially ones at the top of the heap, simply want the best graduate students. If that means filling their spots with grads from an exceptionally strong applicant pool from one school, I doubt they have any qualms accepting them all.</p>
<p>How you define "the best," however, is as MatthewM04 alluded to: it's not just about grade point averages, test scores or what school you went to, it's also highly dependent on your personal statement, your letters of recommendation, and relevant experience/achievements in the field. Rather difficult to quantify when something as simple as prior positive contact with one of the professors on the admitting board or within the admitting department can outweigh a slightly subpar GPA.</p>
<p>The top schools tend to be networked with the top schools. What I mean by this is that the profs at Great School A know the profs at Great School B. Therefore, those letters of rec may carry a bit more weight. However, a person who puts together a really great app is just as strong as anyone else. The adcoms don't say, "Hey, this guy is from Top Ivy! Admit him! This guy from Little Known LAC has research experience, pubs, and great recs, but... I don't know anything about his school. Reject!"</p>
<p>It's pretty much like DespSeek describes, with this caveat:</p>
<p>If an undergraduate institution is known to have a particularly weak department (in the applicant's intended area of specialization), that CAN work against an applicant. </p>
<p>Also, it's not just "top schools networked with top schools." We know the folks in our fields and subfields, and are networked with practically all of them. Even if we don't know them personally because they're newly minted PhDs or something, we know the folks that were on their committees. And by no means all of our well-known and respected colleagues are at Ivies or top LACs -- I can think of many superb scholars who are at out-of-the-way small institutions, or mid level state colleges, for example. And when these colleagues recommend to us a strong candidate, we pay attention.</p>
<p>A strong GPA never hurt but going to a school that is well-known in its discipline and has a demanding curriculum (as can be found at MIT) would give an edge. All 4.0s are not created equal (grade inflation and easier programs/universities), but even having one would not necessarily guarantee your admission.</p>
<p>so say at school x it take 30 hours a week to get a 2.5 and at school y it takes 30 hours a week to get a 4.0 are they considered equals? what if there are cut off gpas? If u ask me. I don't think the schools deeply scrutinize the difference between two schools difficulty. </p>
<p>For example, UCSF's pharmacy schools require a minimum gpa of 2.8 to be considered. Obviously getting a 2.0 at say UC Berkeley is much harder than getting a 4.0 at some community college. yet the person from Cal will lose out in admissions. Sounds really unfair to me.</p>
<p>CCs arent that much easier than regular universities. Sure some top universities are harder than others, but there isnt THAT much of a difference. Its more like a 3.8 at Noname U is equal to 3.6 or 3.5 at MIT (or other top school)</p>
<p>If the comp is between a Harvard grad with a 4.0 and a grad from U of Nowhere with a 4.0, I would imagine the Harvard chap gets admitted. But since this is almost never how grad admissions break down, people going to No Name U don,t need to worry too much about where they did their undergrad, but rather what the did while they were in undergrad.
Grad programs doN,t want tpo fill their ranks with Ivy grads. They want to fill their ranks with students who have potential, have shown great work, and will obviously perform at the graduate level.
Also, in some areas (such as Law) where you did your undergrad has exactly ZERO impact on admissions. Well, maybe not zero, but very, very, low.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, so basically if you're from a no name university, you're losing out about .2 to .3 of your GPA. Isn't that right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I tend to look at it the other way around -- going to an elite school would be like having points added to your GPA, in some sense, but not going to an elite school would not be like having points subtracted from your GPA. That is to say, your GPA matters less in the admissions process if you go to a top school.</p>
<p>In a straight contest between an MIT grad with a 4.0 and a graduate of School X with a 4.0, the MIT applicant is still more likely to get in. But I don't think this is because of his or her school pedigree per se -- it's that the MIT grad is more likely to have had outstanding research experiences, internships, and recommendations from well-known professors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Grad programs doN,t want tpo fill their ranks with Ivy grads.
[/quote]
They don't actively want to, for sure, but I don't think they would be too put out if they accidentally did.</p>
<p>I'd also point out that Harvard GPAs are so incredibly inflated (and that's so well-known), they may not get any edge whatsoever in that area. Some unis are well-known to have grade deflation. Don't pick a school just because it's "elite," thinking that will be an advantage later. Go to a good school, but "elite" doesn't matter so much.</p>