Page 7 of 7

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:06 pm
by Imperate
emperial wrote:
excel wrote:babazula, do you have a sense of why you got rejected from all the US grad programs?
I dunno he mentioned it in his Applications but the reason may lie in the fact that he is self-funded.
I thought that would have been a bonus point?

I reckon it is possibly more to do with him being British than anything else, and US admin profs perhaps not understanding the British undergraduate system (although they obviously would know what part III is, so I don't know how they would get confused into thinking he only did three years undergrad). Absolutley no idea to be honest, seems really strange.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:29 pm
by Mataka
Simple, GRE physics of only 900 , that's definitely too low for theory. On the other hand he published a few papers so that should have compensate ...

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:37 pm
by grae313
Mataka wrote:Simple, GRE physics of only 900 , that's definitely too low for theory. On the other hand he published a few papers so that should have compensate ...
total BULLSHIT right there.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:08 pm
by pqortic
grae313 wrote:
emperial wrote: I dunno he mentioned it in his Applications but the reason may lie in the fact that he is self-funded.
Wouldn't that be a huge bonus?
first I thought its a bonus, but as you know top schools don't have money problem to hire self funded students. instead they intend to accept students who get paid and obey and do what the department and supervisor require them.
but as there exist some good papers and self-support, it means that he will do what he wants.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:43 pm
by meno
excel wrote:babazula, do you have a sense of why you got rejected from all the US grad programs? So surprising with your profile. Could it have been that the U.S. programs interpreted your degree as a 3-year undergraduate degree and rejected your application on a technicality? (Almost all U.S. graduate schools do not accept 3-yr undergraduate degrees).
I wonder if this has something to do with it:
http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php ... 990#p21990

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:06 pm
by grae313
DAMN Quakes, I'd have megalomania too with that profile! How did you not get accepted everywhere you applied? This admission season has just been ridiculously brutal, and it's just stupid dumb luck that it happened to be this year. Wow. If I had graduated this year instead of last I would seriously just be waiting and re-applying next year.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:18 pm
by WakkaDojo
Seriously... after reading other people's profiles I wonder how I got into any schools since others who didn't have stronger credentials.

That just goes to show you how random the selection process is.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:43 pm
by Mataka
Yeah Quakes there is fundammentally wrong with your application, you should have been admitted everywhere.

The fact that you have not been admitted everywhere doesn't prove that the universities are brutal, it means they saw something that we didn't see in your profile. Any clue ?

You're only flaw is being international, and it's not that big of a flaw ... is it possible that your profile is too perfect ? Can they suspect you to cheat ?

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:57 pm
by grae313
Mataka wrote:Yeah Quakes there is fundammentally wrong with your application, you should have been admitted everywhere.

The fact that you have not been admitted everywhere doesn't prove that the universities are brutal, it means they saw something that we didn't see in your profile. Any clue ?

You're only flaw is being international, and it's not that big of a flaw ... is it possible that your profile is too perfect ? Can they suspect you to cheat ?
Mataka, you've been making a lot of claims lately as if they were fact. From reading every profile from last year and this year, it is undeniably harder this year, and Quakes is not the only stellar profile met with terrible luck. Maybe you're right, but for you to claim your opinon as fact is a little outrageous.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:22 pm
by astrofan
WakkaDojo wrote:Seriously... after reading other people's profiles I wonder how I got into any schools since others who didn't have stronger credentials.

That just goes to show you how random the selection process is.
Just pointing out, there is one HUGE part of the applications that we can't see: rec letters.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:37 am
by Mataka
grae313 wrote:
Mataka wrote:Yeah Quakes there is fundammentally wrong with your application, you should have been admitted everywhere.

The fact that you have not been admitted everywhere doesn't prove that the universities are brutal, it means they saw something that we didn't see in your profile. Any clue ?

You're only flaw is being international, and it's not that big of a flaw ... is it possible that your profile is too perfect ? Can they suspect you to cheat ?
Mataka, you've been making a lot of claims lately as if they were fact. From reading every profile from last year and this year, it is undeniably harder this year, and Quakes is not the only stellar profile met with terrible luck. Maybe you're right, but for you to claim your opinon as fact is a little outrageous.


grae313, I read every 2008 and 2009 profiles, and yes Quakes is the only ''perfect'' profile which got rejected everywhere (there are good profiles that met with terrible luck as you say, but never as good as Quakes). This is why I think the selection comitte saw something we didn't, this seems to be rather obvious. I don't care if you want to deny this, but as far as I can tell it's seems to be the only explanation.

By the way I'm gettng the feeling you think the application process has a lot to do with luck, which is a little outrageous ;) (Come on, you must be a girl to care so much about the way I say things rather than what I say ... give me a break !)

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:55 am
by ieyp
It seems that publications are useless... three PRB still cannot bring me into graduate school. It clearly show that I devoted my time to do research then published a first-author paper in PRB but reduced the preparation time of the GRE exams is COMPLETELY WRONG.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:57 am
by grae313
Mataka wrote:grae313, I read every 2008 and 2009 profiles, and yes Quakes is the only ''perfect'' profile which got rejected everywhere (there are good profiles that met with terrible luck as you say, but never as good as Quakes). This is why I think the selection comittee saw something we didn't, this seems to be rather obvious. I don't care if you want to deny this, but as far as I can tell it seems to be the only explanation.

By the way I'm gettng the feeling you think the application process has a lot to do with luck, which is a little outrageous ;) (Come on, you must be a girl to care so much about the way I say things rather than what I say ... give me a break !)
Ah, now you add statements like "as far as I can tell" and "it seems." This was exactly my point.

And no, I emphatically DO NOT think that it has "a lot" to do with luck. Few people would deny that there is a bit of luck involved, but if you read what a wrote more carefully, the only thing I said had to do with luck was whether you happen to graduate and then apply during a time of economic crisis or prosperity. And if you have read all the profiles like you say, then you know I'm a girl and that's all I'll say about that cheap shot. I'll give you a break for what you type as long as you're not telling people who come here for advice that no one with <900 on the PGRE can successfully apply to top schools as a theorist, and that international students with excellent profiles who don't get admits in dire funding situation either have a huge application flaw or are suspected of cheating.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:48 pm
by Mataka
I'll give you a break for what you type as long as you're not telling people who come here for advice that no one with <900 on the PGRE can successfully apply to top schools as a theorist, and that international students with excellent profiles who don't get admits in dire funding situation either have a huge application flaw or are suspected of cheating.
Yep, exactly what I said, you're your reading skills are impressive !

Btw that's sarcastic, you extrapolate what I said way beyond what I meant.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm
by cato88
All she seems to be saying is that everyone is facing an awful admissions season which is true and what you would expect because the Fall 2009 class has the unique distinction of applying right before the Obama increase in funding ie. less spots and the increase in applications caused by the recession.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:07 pm
by grae313
Mataka wrote:
I'll give you a break for what you type as long as you're not telling people who come here for advice that no one with <900 on the PGRE can successfully apply to top schools as a theorist, and that international students with excellent profiles who don't get admits in dire funding situation either have a huge application flaw or are suspected of cheating.
Yep, exactly what I said, you're your reading skills are impressive !

Btw that's sarcastic, you extrapolate what I said way beyond what I meant.
Mataka wrote:Simple, GRE physics of only 900 , that's definitely too low for theory. On the other hand he published a few papers so that should have compensate ...
Mataka wrote:The fact that you have not been admitted everywhere doesn't prove that the universities are brutal, it means they saw something that we didn't see in your profile. Any clue ?

You're only flaw is being international, and it's not that big of a flaw ... is it possible that your profile is too perfect ? Can they suspect you to cheat ?
you said 900 is definitely too low for theory, and that Quakes' lack of admits means that either there is something else on his application that we can't see, or that maybe they suspect him of cheating. My rewording was, I guess, a bit harsh, but if it is indeed "way beyond" what you meant, then I don't think you expressed your thoughts very well.

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:34 pm
by Mataka
Well, form those statements you extracted :
no one with <900 on the PGRE can successfully apply to top schools as a theorist, and that international students with excellent profiles who don't get admits in dire funding situation either have a huge application flaw or are suspected of cheating.
Some people can sucessfully apply to top school in theory with a <900 on the PGRE, but we were trying to see what went wrong with his application and the only thing I could see was he PGRE, especially since he is not an american.

An internationnal student with a PERFECT profile who gets rejected EVERYWHERE is extremely weird, so this means that the profile is probably not perfect when we look at the entire profile (statement of purpose, recommendation letters ...), otherwise there is doesn't seem to be any explanation why he got rejected everywhere, and the ''awful admissions season'' is simply not a good enough explanation (that can only explain why a good student get rejected to most places, but not a perfect student who gets rejected everywhere !)

Re: Discussion of 2009 Profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:21 pm
by grae313
K, I'm sick of this. To lighten the mood:

Image