<p>
[quote]
Focus<br>
Sean at 12:09 pm, May 9th, 2007</p>
<p>A true story.</p>
<p>I’m sitting on the graduate admissions committee for the physics department at a major research university. Across the table, fellow committee member Prof. A is perusing the file of an applicant who is on the bubble. Prof. A turns to Prof. B next to him and says, “Did you see this one? The student has a Masters degree in Divinity.”</p>
<p>Now, you know me. Not really the Divinity-School type. But still, I’m thinking, that’s interesting. Shows a certain intellectual curiosity to study religion and then move on to physics. There’s some successful tradition there.</p>
<p>But Prof. A shakes his head slowly. “I would really worry about someone like this, that they weren’t devoted enough to doing physics.”</p>
<p>Prof. B nods sagely in assent. “Yes, you have to be concerned that they just don’t have the focus to succeed.”</p>
<p>People get turned down for alot of reasons. It's called interviewer bias. This is just another example. It's a movie role, if you don't fit the character they want, they don't need you. It's not necessarily you.</p>
<p>Why shouldn't it be like that? There are TONS of schools out there that prefer students that pick one field and stick to it, rather than students that bounce around a bit. That doesn't always make them better, but a student who is switching fields has to know that some schools aren't going to like them as a result. Heck, I got crap from some schools for switching from architecture to graphic design. That's NOTHING compared to a divinity/physics switch.</p>
<p>They didn't say if he had any physics experience at all. As a history/IR kinda guy, I'm sure I could apply for a Johns Hopkins Biology Ph.D and I'm sure an MSc in History is impressive but it's completely useless for Biology.</p>
<p>simple question: if you had to choose between the number 2 school for your major (humanities - top top program, outstanding faculty) but NO funding, and a very good school in top 20, full funding, with good people to work with who really wanted you, what would u do? would u go into debt? School number one is not offering a penny, nor promising anything for year two, though that could be a "possiblity".</p>
<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... Follow The Money. </p>
<p>And it's not just about relieving future indebtedness.</p>
<p>A program that FUNDS you supports your candidacy in every way. They WANT you there, and they are putting their money where their mouth is. They believe they have the right resources (faculty etc.) to support you in your goals. The program that funds you is the program that is going to bend over backwards to see you through all the fiery hoops.</p>
<p>Thanks Prof X. Its just difficult to ignore the prestige factor.</p>
<p>I wonder why certain extremely competitve Phd programs accept several students they can't fund? Whats the thinking there? Do they discuss "well this candidate is good but not great so let's see if he wants to pay his way?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would it surprise you if it was Caltech?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Statistically speaking, if Incident X happened at Institution Y, and I received little more info about Institution Y, then it's highly unlikely that Institution Y would be Caltech (given an equal and low probability of Incident X happening in any given institution). That I initially concluded that Institution Y happened to be Caltech was consequently a surprise (since I'm amorous of Caltech ;))</p>
<p>Similar to "if any Incident X happened to Person Y, and I received little more info about Person Y, then it's highly unlikely that I would hear about Person Y (given that I would only know a very small number of people out of those who have the potential to encounter Incident X). I was surprised to hear that I know the Intel STS Grand Prize winner for this year, for example (since I don't know the far majority of others who would have a shot at it). It happened to be someone who participated in the same thread as I did in 2005 (SSP 2005 admissions - though she got in and I got rejected).</p>
<p>In other words, I have biases towards a couple of institutions - and towards a small number of people I know - even though the institutions and people number far less than the total number of institutions/people eligible for Incident X. The chances of any Incident X happening to an institution/a person I'm biased towards (either through my emotional association with an institution or though my knowledge of a person) is very low given little information other than the news of Incident X - and consequently as a result of that probability, I should be surprised.</p>
<p>Similarly, you should be surprised if I were to say, appear for some national talk show (same logic applies).</p>
<p>But it's probably Chicago (where he used to work)
.</p>
<p>And apologies to Inquiline Kea for hijacking his thread. :) My only comment on the CalTech/Chicago eavesdropping situation is this:</p>
<p>If you did something academically serious in a different field from the one in which you INTEND to get academically serious, then "Lucy, you got some splainin' to do" in your personal statement.</p>
<p>"Because they can" means "because top tier schools know that many students will drink the prestige Kool-Aid and take the unfunded offers of admission and pay the money. More money for the university." Where's the cruelty? It's a market-driven economy.</p>
<p>Herein lies the cruelty: I was under the impression that many of the top tier universities (especially those, actually) in the humanities had made the decision to only accept those students they could fund, to avoid a glut in the field and students that incur onerous debt. Silly me.</p>