<p>I know I'm only a freshmen, but I'm bored and sick of doing homework...</p>
<p>Okay, so I was wondering which matter the most in graduate admissions.
A) Major GPA
B) Cumulative GPA
C) Reccomendations
D) GRE</p>
<p>Please list in order, from most important to least,</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>For engineering:</p>
<p>1) Recommendations / Research experience
2) gpa (major gpa if it is much more impressive)
3) gre (doesn't really help you, but sure can hurt you)</p>
<p>These rankings will be different depending on the field though.</p>
<p>While I agree with Dirt McGirt's ranking (I'm in biology), I think it's worth noting that graduate admissions are generally more holistic than undergradute admissions, and every aspect of the application is important.</p>
<p>Moreover, the relative weight of factors will depend on other aspects of your application -- if you have a gorgeous recommendation from a famous professor, for example, or if you have previously worked with a professor in the department to which you are applying, you may be forgiven quite a bit in the way of GPA and GRE scores.</p>
<p>I'm in the humanities (philosophy), I'd assume getting published would look very good?</p>
<p>Yes, getting published is very good for admissions in essentially every field. It might be more impressive in the humanities than in the sciences, as it's generally much harder to be published as an undergraduate in the humanities. Of course, it's a good idea to publish in a reputable journal, as opposed to something like an undergraduate journal, or a journal that isn't peer-reviewed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's worth noting that graduate admissions are generally more holistic than undergradute admissions, and every aspect of the application is important
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, perhaps I have a different definition of the word 'holistic', but if by that word, you tend to mean 'well-rounded' or diverse or something of that sort, then I would say that, at the top schools, grad admissions are FAR LESS holistic than in undergrad admissions. Put another way, grad admissions are far more straightforward in terms of knowing what you need to do to get in. If you have great published research, great grades at a top school, great rec's and great GRE scores, you are going to get into one of the top schools. Heck, even deficiencies in a few more categories may not prevent you from getting. Molliebatmit has freely admitted that she didn't get super-top grades at MIT, but she got into all of the top grad schools anyway. (Then again, we are talking about MIT, where simply passing your classes is an accomplishment). </p>
<p>Contrast that with undergrad admissions at the top schools, where you can have top grades, top test scores, top rec's, and top everything else... and still not get into any of the top programs. Or if you do get into one of them, it may be because you happen to luckily fulfill some particular 'diversity need' at that school. For example, I know one girl back in high school who got into Harvard but not into any of the other Ivies she applied to. While obviously nobody knows exactly why she was admitted to Harvard, it was generally believed by most people, including that girl herself, that the reason why she was admitted was simply because the Harvard Field Hockey team just happened to have graduated their star goalie that year and so needed a replacement, and she had led the high school field hockey team to a top state ranking that year. The other Ivies apparently didn't need a goalie and so didn't admit her.</p>
<p>The point is, while grad admissions at the top schools are not completely predictable, they seem to be far more predictable and less holistic than are admissions to the top undergrad programs. This is especially true when you're talking about PhD programs. No PhD program cares if you are a star polo player or a great bassoon player or were President of the Tiddly Winks Club or any other activity unless it has a direct application to the Phd program you are applying to. {For example, maybe being a genius bassoon player may help you get into a top PhD music program, but it certainly won't help you to get into a top PhD Chemical Engineering program}. </p>
<p>In that sense, you could say that grad admissions are more pure than are the top undergrad programs. Plenty of people are admitted or rejected from the top undergrad programs for reasons that, frankly, have nothing to do with academics. Put another way, being a star athlete might help you get into a top engineering school like Stanford for undergrad admissions, but is going to do nothing for you in terms of getting you into Stanford for grad engineering.</p>
<p>I'm fairly sure that Mollie wasn't saying that applicants must, say have done sports. Holistic, in reference to admissions, means that the adcoms don't choose the incoming class based solely on GPA or GRE; though there is sometimes a cut-off GPA or GRE, bad scores can often be overlooked if the applicant has great research or great references.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Molliebatmit has freely admitted that she didn't get super-top grades at MIT, but she got into all of the top grad schools anyway. (Then again, we are talking about MIT, where simply passing your classes is an accomplishment).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's funny that you responded to a post by Mollie herself and referred to her in the third-person. </p>
<p>I do agree though. Graduate admissions are far more "hook" dependent than undergrad admissions.</p>
<p>
Well, perhaps I have a different definition of the word 'holistic', but if by that word, you tend to mean 'well-rounded' or diverse or something of that sort
No, I just mean that grad school admissions seem to be less strictly numbers-based than undergrad -- that you can happen to have a low GRE score or a low GPA and still get into top programs if you have some other mitigating piece of your application. </p>
<p>What I was actually thinking when I wrote that was that it's not possible to tell whether someone will get into a certain grad school based on numbers alone -- having a 4.0 undergrad GPA and a perfect GRE score won't really help you for science programs if you have no research experience. I would expect GPAs of students admitted to top grad schools to have a much broader distribution than GPAs of students admitted to top undergrad schools.</p>
<p>I do agree that admission to top grad programs is a lot more predictable than admission to top undergrad programs, but I'm not sure what the source of that disparity is.</p>
<p>Perhaps admission to top undergrad schools is equally holistic, but graduate school admissions are more academically meritocratic? Or is it just that there are fewer obviously qualified candidates for graduate admissions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's funny that you responded to a post by Mollie herself and referred to her in the third-person
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's because I was addressing all readers in my post, not her specifically. After all, I think what I have said is not a surprise to her, although it may be a surprise to some readers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I do agree though. Graduate admissions are far more "hook" dependent than undergrad admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, don't you mean the exact opposite - that grad admissions are far LESS 'hook-dependent'? </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I just mean that grad school admissions seem to be less strictly numbers-based than undergrad -- that you can happen to have a low GRE score or a low GPA and still get into top programs if you have some other mitigating piece of your application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I don't know that I can agree with this, because I am not sure that there aren't strong mitigating factors in undergrad admissions as well. I believe Jerome Karabel, writer of the book "The Chosen", discussed the rather conspicuously low average numbers (high school GPA and standardized tests) of the athletes at the top undergrad schools. For example, the stats of the football players at HYPS are significantly worse than that of the average student at HYPS. Hence, football skill is a 'mitigating factor'. The same could be said for outstanding artistic talent or musical talent. </p>
<p>The real issue seems to be what are the mitigating factors involved. In grad-school, the mitigating factors are almost exclusively academic or research factors. For example, a stellar published paper can basically cure all ills. But this is perfectly logic because publications demonstrate research/academic skill. In undergrad, the mitigating factors can be things that have absolutely nothing to do with academics, for example, the ability to throw a football, or in the case of the girl I know, the ability to prevent anybody from scoring goals in field hockey. These skills have nothing to do with academics. The same could be said for music or artistic talent. Put another way, star athletic/artistic/music ability can really help you to get into a top undergrad program, but won't help you get into a top PhD program, unless that PhD has to do specifically with that talent. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I do agree that admission to top grad programs is a lot more predictable than admission to top undergrad programs, but I'm not sure what the source of that disparity is.</p>
<p>Perhaps admission to top undergrad schools is equally holistic, but graduate school admissions are more academically meritocratic? Or is it just that there are fewer obviously qualified candidates for graduate admissions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's more that grad school admissions are far more straightforward and well-defined. I think essayist Paul Graham said it best when he said that when it comes to PhD admissions, the people who are doing the admissions are the faculty members themselves, and they know full well that they may end up having to work with the students that they admit. The feedback mechanism is therefore quite clear. This therefore serves as a strong incentive to admit highly qualified people. However, when we're talking about undergrad admissions and certain grad admissions (notably business school, and to some extent law and medical school), the people who are doing the admitting are largely professional admissions officers who are unlikely to ever have to interact later with the students that they admit. Hence, because they are shielded from the decisions they make, they are therefore far more likely to engage in political or 'social engineering' when they admit people. </p>
<p>It is especially difficult to have to explain the US system to a foreigner. Countless times have I had to explain (almost apologetically) why it is that the ability to run quickly with a football can help you to get admitted to a top college in the US. Few other higher education systems at other schools actually have a system of preferentially admitting athletes or other talents that have nothing to do with academics. Most foreigners would respond that "I thought you went to college to learn, not to play sports."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, don't you mean the exact opposite - that grad admissions are far LESS 'hook-dependent'?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I mean what I said...but I suppose I'm looking at "hooks" as a different beast for grad admissions. Let's look at it this way: pretty much everyone applying to top 10 PhD programs in poli sci will be guaranteed to have a good GPA, strong GRE, and at least adequate LoRs. However, numbers alone do not get someone into PhD programs-- this becomes especially apparent when everyone is pretty much at the same level.</p>
<p>However, a demonstrated interest in something a professor in that department is doing is a good "plus." Exciting and original research in the past will also differentiate you from the crowd.</p>
<p>Tons of people get into undergrad based on numbers alone. Very few get into PhD programs based on numbers alone. It's the little subjective qualities that really give someone the edge.</p>
<p>That's what I mean by "hook" in this context. Now feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you'll find reason to. :p</p>
<p>When I said
Perhaps admission to top undergrad schools is equally holistic, but graduate school admissions are more academically meritocratic?
</p>
<p>I meant
The real issue seems to be what are the mitigating factors involved. In grad-school, the mitigating factors are almost exclusively academic or research factors. For example, a stellar published paper can basically cure all ills. But this is perfectly logic because publications demonstrate research/academic skill. In undergrad, the mitigating factors can be things that have absolutely nothing to do with academics, for example, the ability to throw a football, or in the case of the girl I know, the ability to prevent anybody from scoring goals in field hockey. These skills have nothing to do with academics. The same could be said for music or artistic talent. Put another way, star athletic/artistic/music ability can really help you to get into a top undergrad program, but won't help you get into a top PhD program, unless that PhD has to do specifically with that talent.
</p>
<p>So both processes are looking at a variety of factors, some objective(ish) and some subjective, but the subjective grad school factors are pretty exclusively academic and the subjective undergrad factors are generally not.</p>
<p>I did, incidentally, write down on all of my grad school apps that I was an MIT cheerleader, and many of my interviewers brought cheerleading up with me during my interview. I don't think it really helped me very much (and probably not at all compared to my research experience, LORs, and publications), but I think it made me a little more memorable in the eyes of the application readers.</p>