Have I been waitlisted?

Graduate School
1

<p>Ok, basicly I've been waiting the past 3 weeks for some type of response to my applications(PhD) to 5 different schools I applied to. I called a couple, and they said that my application is still being reviewed/hasn't been reviewed because they are backed up/will be done next week(I called in the middle of last week). </p>

<p>I'm kind of disenchanted because I knew I wasn't a strong candidate to begin with and I feel like I've been waitlisted. Do the schools have to tell you that you are waitlisted? Also, should I start applying for jobs elsewhere in case I don't get into any schools? I applied for a job and they have set up an interview with me on Monday; I also foolishly told them during the initial phone interview that I was applying to grad schools so I wouldn't be able to make any decisions until I got responses to that. So should I cancel the interview and not apply until I hear responses?</p>

<p>Also, I had transcripts with 2 classes from one school that messed up my transcripts(they had me under 2 files, so only one class was shown) and they only sent the fixed version last week(they messed up big time, then after I visited them they were supposed to remail them but forgot, only found out from one of the schools I applied to and had to call them a couple dozen times to straighten it out). So one of the schools I applied to hasn't even started considering my application(this one was for a Master's though, kinda a backup). Could the possible delay in decision be due to the lack of transcripts for 2 classes? I called the schools and asked if my application was complete and they said it was, so I thought maybe not the transcripts fault. If anyone can lend their thoughts on this, I'd appreciate it.</p>

2

<p>If it makes you feel any better you're definitely not alone. I applied to PhD programs at 4 schools and only one has responded so far. One of them hasn't made any decisions at all and the other 2 have sent out both accepts and rejects, so I'm assuming I'm waitlisted at them since I haven't heard anything. </p>

<p>I am curious as to whether or not school tell students if they're waitlisted or not. If I am I'll just accept the offer I have now. But if they're waiting until Apr 15 to tell me that I got off a waitlist or that I'm rejected that's not kosher.</p>

<p>I assume your school will get back to you before the 15th since most schools require students to accept/deny their offers by then.</p>

<p>I think it's a little unfair after rushing to get in applications and adhere to deadlines that were months ago.</p>

3

<p>A lot of places put the deadline at April 15th or 14 days from when you were accepted, whichever is later. Meaning they might accept you after April 15th. I think, especially with places that do interviews, if you are accepted or rejected they let you know within one week of the interview. If not, you are "waitlisted". I got accepted to a school I was sure I blew the interview with, but they took a month to do so. I am sure I was on some sort of waitlist for that school.</p>

4

<p>Many programs do not really "waitlist." They rank.</p>

<p>Then, they admit top ranked folks, and wait.</p>

<p>When top-ranked folks decline, then they move to the next ranked applicant.</p>

<p>So... if you are waiting to hear, you are not really "waitlisted," you are simply in the pool of applicants who may or may not be offered admission.</p>

5

<p>Just a little update; I got accepted to my backup today, my application manager pretty much said that they were just waiting on my transcript for the one school and now that they got it they can sign away on everything and I was accepted. Score!</p>

6

<p>"When top-ranked folks decline, then they move to the next ranked applicant. ... you are simply in the pool of applicants who may or may not be offered admission."</p>

<p>Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that exactly how a waitlist works?</p>

<p>In other words, if some people are already explicitly waitlisted, what would it mean that others are being treated in the way you describe?</p>

7

<p>GopherGrad,</p>

<p>You are correct! </p>

<p>However, the (crazy, in some ways quite meaningless) distinction is that in programs with formal "waitlists," the applicants are notified of their status as such, sometimes early on in the application process.</p>

<p>In programs without actual "waitlists," the applicants are not informed of their status, or of their ranking. There is just "ongoing admission" until the process is complete. So technically, every single applicant (except the top X number of initial admits) is on a "waitlist."</p>

<p>One can blame this particular weirdness on university administrators and their insistence on certain terminological distinctions. Personally, I blame <em>everything</em> on administration. Keeps things neat, you know? ;)</p>

8

<p>Thanks for the infro Professor X, you're incredibly helpful! </p>

<p>That said though (and I'm not shooting the messenger lol), it's incredibly unfair to the students that are in limbo between an acceptance at one school and waiting for a decision from another. If I'm on a waitlist at least I'll know where I stand with the university I'm hoping for (should they explicitly tell me). But by them not saying a word I have no idea if they even got to me, are considering my application or already have me as one of the rejected students and are waiting to send out their decisions en masse.</p>

<p>And if I accept at one school and then turn them down later after accepting I personally think that's a little messed up for anyone else that may have had a chance there had I said something earlier on.</p>

9

<p>Ha!</p>

<p>Fair enough, X.</p>

<p>I seem to be in this bizarre situation in which there is an official and unofficial waitlists. In other words, it has been weeks since any decisions were handed out. Some people have been explicitly waitlisted; others seem to be just waiting on a list. I'd love to know what the difference could possibly be.</p>

10

<p>Heliosphan,</p>

<p>Glad I could help. That's the whole reason I visit this site -- to demystify the process a bit. </p>

<p>But I can't help but comment that one should <em>never</em> accept anything until all the information is in, so one will <em>never</em> need to rescind an acceptance. It is <em>very</em> bad form, and can really pi$$ people off. (Picture the DGS having to go through a list of rejected applicants, call several of them, and offer them a belated and sheepish acceptance. That horrific situation would be the result of a rescinded acceptance.) </p>

<p>Instead, just tell Program A that you're waiting to hear from Program B. And contact the DGS of Program B, tell her/him that you've been accepted to Program A, and that <em>PROGRAM A</em> (not you!) would like a timeframe. </p>

<p>GopherGrad,
Here's my guess about what's going on with that program. Top folks were notified (acceptance). Maybe waaaay bottom folks were notified (rejected). There are two remaining groups of applicants: Those who were told they're on a waitlist, and those who were not. </p>

<p>We can therefore deduce that those who were told they're on a waitlist are either those in the top portion of the remaining group (let's call the top portion Group A) or those who are in the bottom portion of the remaining group (let's call the bottom portion Group B).</p>

<p>If it's the former case, then those in Group A are "waiting" for the very top folks (who accepted) to make their decisions. If it's the latter case, then those in Group B were given "waitlist" status (in this case, meaning "don't count on admission"), while those in Group A are still "contenders" for spots. </p>

<p>My guess? It's the former case. This would be more likely because the program probably doesn't want to tell the Group B folks they are most likely to be rejected, since the program has to cover its bases and have a large enough of pool from which to draw in case some (or all) folks from Group A, when offered admission, decline.</p>

<p>Was that intelligible? Hmm. Well, at least I understand me.</p>

11

<p>Just wondering while we are on the subject, I've read Peterson's online guide of Grad schools for different disciplines. They had an acceptance rate for the schools; wondering on the rates(if anyone knows), is that the people who decline offers and the subsequent people who accept those offers that were on the waitlist? So is 50% of 40 applicants not actually 20 people getting offers but a smaller amount with a few people passing up on offers? Just wondering, since I'm looking at these percentages and wondering where I stand.</p>

<p>Oh and Prof X, had to read your post twice, but I got what you were saying(those were my thoughts kinda, I'm just hoping that its the more favorable situation for me and not the 'no one is rejected until all offers are accepted' one).</p>

12

<p>Prof. X,</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm picking up what you're puttin' down; bagging what you're raking, if you will.</p>

<p>I had also kind of hoped it was the latter, though. It sucks to be forced to wait longer when they know there's little chance for you...</p>

13

<p>While we're on the subject... I've been accepted to School A (one of my top choices), but I'm waiting to hear word from School B (my other top choice). School A was prompt in extending an offer, and I believe I was a first round pick. Assuming the theories mentioned above are true in my case, even if I am accepted at School B, I'm likely going to be a second or third round pick... (Ironically, School A is ranked a bit higher.)</p>

<p>The programs at Schools A & B are comparable; part of me wants just go to School A since it seems more interested in me. Unfortunately, School B makes more financial sense and does not require relocation. Is the saying, "in is in," realistic, or should a school's level of interest in you play a role in decision-making?</p>

14

<p>My two cents?</p>

<p>Think a little deeper. If School A maybe picked you up faster because it's a better "fit", following suit makes sense. Also, what kind of school? At a PhD program where you will be working with the profs that selected you, your feeling makes more sense than a larger professional program where you'll not be remembered.</p>

15

<p>@ GopherGrad (or to anyone, for that matter) - What does best fit mean? How does a school decide whether a particular applicant Q is the best fit? Research interests? But it can't be, as most people would have a particular faculty or two in mind when writing their SOPs. So most people would be reasonably good fits. SOPs? I am quite sure that the people at Penn Genetics (and I suspect in more schools) never so much as read my SOP when deciding to call me up for an interview (Well that, or they benevolently ignored the glaring fact that I had put in a Baylor faculty's name in my 'faculty contacted in Penn Genetics' para). Undergrad major? GPA? Interviews? International students are admitted in a lot of schools without an interview. 2 out of 3 of my calls were w/o interviews. What does that leave? GRE scores?</p>

16

<p>IMHO: Best fit = Can we do something with this applicant? Can we offer something that will get him/her toward his/her goals? Research interests are critical here -- believe it or not, souravrc, not all applicants have a FOCUS, and IF they have identified particular faculty with whom they'd like to work, they are not always able to say why. In my field, SOP is a major part of admissions decisions. (Perhaps not in yours, souravrc.) </p>

<p>The other big factor in decisions is: How well is this applicant prepared to do what s/he plans to do? We can (and do) look at undergraduate major, undergraduate institution, GPA, GRE, LORs, etc. in order to answer that question.</p>

<p>In my program, the first "cut" is made by answering the preparation question. The "fit" question is then asked of the remaining applicants.</p>

17

<p>I agree with you, Professor X, and hence I was v surprised when the whole Penn Genetics thing happened. I guess I ll put it down to oversight. But I m still not convinced abt schools not interviewing international students. Even a top school like Cornell Chemistry took in a friend of mine w/o interviewing this year. While this is great for my friend, I m still not v sure why would a school take pains to put together multiple interview weekends for domestic students but admit int. students w/o so much as a chat. I m NOT assuming bias, and I quite understand that calling up/arranging for int. students to fly in can be v costly for the school, but the whole thing strikes me as v strange. Don't you think so?</p>

18

<p>IMHO, (YMMV), for departments that interview, it is usually primarily a financial constraint that precludes on-site interviews. Many programs do phone interviews, but these have their own problems (language difficulties, lack of non-verbal cues, etc.) and thus some departments have decided to dispense with those. </p>

<p>In addition, some programs see interview weekends as MUCH more for the benefit of the applicant than for the admissions committee, and thus don't invite students unable to travel. </p>

<p>Keep in mind, I am not defending the practice of "no interviews for internationals," I am merely explaining why some departments do not hold them.</p>

19

<p>^ On top of everything that Professor X mentioned there are also Visa and transport issues involved to bring International Students to the US for an interview.</p>

20

<p>Thanks for the responses. I apologize for the delay in following up -- I was actually out of town visiting School A. These are Masters programs, which I should have noted in the original post. As for fit, I'd say that School B actually suits my interests a little better, but I can't answer the reverse: which school finds me to be a better fit with its program.</p>