<p>Is this just a fantasy or is it actually true ? I keep hearing that universities have holistic approaches when evaluating someone for grad school but can you get reject if you are strong in every aspect but let's say one aspect of your application is weak? Let's say your GRE? </p>
<p>It’s actually true, it’s not a fantasy, lol.</p>
<p>Graduate professors want to admit the best students: students who will 1) help them do their own work by assisting in writing grants, publishing papers, and presenting at conferences; 2) make the program look good while they are in it and 3) finish and go onto continue making the program look good by doing awesome things. #1 is not really a factor in professional master’s programs, but #2 and #3 definitely are.</p>
<p>So they are examining your application to see evidence that you can do those things. They use many pieces of information to create that picture, with the understanding that no one piece of information alone is a good indicator of future success in the program. So think about this from their perspective - what if they got a stunning applicant with 2 post-college years of full-time research experience (in addition to 3 years in college), a second-authored publication in Science, interesting research ideas that will push the field forward, glowing recommendations from prominent researchers - and a mediocre GRE score? This applicant has already shown that they are capable of doing research at a high level and succeeding, and that they have a sustained interest that has followed them after college. The low test scores, in this case, are more likely to be a fluke or a result of some unknown but likely unimportant third factor. By every other metric, they are an excellent candidate.</p>
<p>The same goes (to a certain extent) for low cumulative GPAs that are mostly driven by freshman or non-major courses, although of course it depends on how low it is. A 3.2 overall with a 3.7 in the major? Probably okay, especially if the low grades were in irrelevant classes (PE, a history GE for a science major, pre-med courses for a history PhD hopeful who changed career plans). A 2.7? Probably not okay, although other things can make up for it (like a high master’s GPA or several years since the receipt of the degree).</p>
<p>Other weaknesses are more difficult to overcome, though. For example, a PhD hopeful in my field who was otherwise outstanding but had no research experience is unlikely to gain admission, because you don’t have experience in the core thing that you say you want to do for the next 5-7 years of your life. Or a person who majored in history but wants a cognitive psychology PhD would have a very difficult time unless she went back and took the prerequisites, because graduate knowledge builds upon undergrad knowledge.</p>
<p>So the basic idea is - it’s true. But some single indicators are more important than others.</p>