Getting rejected w/ solid academic record but mismatch of research interest

[bjnartowt]

Hi all, something strange has happened.

I've had to speak with the universities I've applied to because a certain university demanded I respond to their offer of admission by March 09, and appeared to be reluctant to extend the deadline to March 18. (I later found out this was rather unorthodox of them).

Before I found out, I emailed some of the programs I'd applied to, asking if they could tell me if they would have an admissions decision by March 18 for me. One program in particular told me they'd have an admissions decision for me in early March. They did not get back to me. I emailed them a couple times (had to persistently knock: application season is busy and hectic for everyone). Finally, one school got back to me... a school I *really* wanted to get into, and said:

"Thanks for your e-mail and interest in our program. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer you admission. We received a record number of applications, and could only accept those we felt had the best match to the research interests of our faculty. "

Curious, I emailed back, asking what would have made my application stronger, and this is the response I got:

"You academic record was sufficient, it was the match to research and research experience. We need to make sure a research group would be willing to support you with their grants after the second year, as we have only a limited supply of TA positions."

This was extra extra strange. This department *stood out* to me because they had hired a whopping 5 condensed matter (CM) theoreticians in the past 15 years. I'm not sure if I sullied my relations with this school because I asked them too many times about the March 18 deadline the other school handed me. It just seemed to not make sense: I told them I was really interested in CM theory, in which they are more than well-staffed, yet they told me my research interests didn't align with theirs. What's going on? Should some sort of red flag be going off in my mind?

 

[Simfish]

Hm interesting. Most colleges do seem to say that most of their rejected applicants are fully qualified to succeed. Which is oftentimes true (although they also often say this just as a white lie - most people do make white lies since they usually shut people up). But on the other hand, for each field, there are many applicants with sufficient academic records, and you might not have been among the top applicants for that field (even if you were still fully qualified). What is telling in this case is that they didn't give a specific number.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What did you expect them to say? "You were qualified, but we had an opportunity to accept some people we liked better."

 

[bjnartowt]

What did you expect them to say? "You were qualified, but we had an opportunity to accept some people we liked better."

I expected them to say I was rejected because I had insufficient academic credentials. Which they did not. Who else is surprised that "research interest mismatch" is a basis for rejection?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm afraid that's not how it works. The department has room for N students, and if 3N are qualified, 2/3 of them will still not be accepted. I

If they can accept, say, 5 condensed matter theorists, and you're #6, you won't get accepted. Even if they have 8 slots for AMO experimenters. So it really is a "research interest mismatch".

 

[twofish-quant]

I expected them to say I was rejected because I had insufficient academic credentials. Which they did not. Who else is surprised that "research interest mismatch" is a basis for rejection?

I'm not because

1) it may not be the real reason you got rejected. It may be that your academic credentials are bad, but you just got the same form letter that everyone got.

2) it may be the real reason that you got rejected. It's common to have a situation in which everyone that applies has stellar academic credentials, and so the only fair way of deciding who gets the position is through research interest. This becomes increasingly common the higher you go, so it's something that you should get used to.

It may be quite random. Something that could have happened is that because they hired a lot of CM researchers in the last few years, someone thought that the university was spending too much effort on CM, and so when you expressed an interested in CM, that killed your application. Or maybe not.

So don't dwell on this. What you'll find as you go on is that these sorts of random, unexplained rejections get more and more common. At lower levels, you can reject people for academic competency, but once you get to the graduate school level, then everyone is competent, so you end up with more randomness.

Something that I found useful in getting through the job hunting process was to read a lot of absurdist literature. Kafka is good, and so it Rosencrantz and Gulderstern are dead. Dilbert and Piled Higher and Deeper are also good. Reading absurdist literature helps you laugh at the situation rather than dwell on it, and if you start laughing at things, it helps you get up in the morning and keep swinging.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also one reason people don't tell you the real reason that you got rejected is that it makes it harder for the committee. If people knew that the reason that they got rejected was because they were interested in CM rather than biophysics, or biophysics rather than CM, then next year, all of the applications will be in the hot field.

If you have eight good people and two spots, the reason that the two people got those spots are going to be "semi-bogus." It's something that you need to get used to.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It just seemed to not make sense: I told them I was really interested in CM theory, in which they are more than well-staffed

Its not just an issue of professors, its potentially an issue of support. Theorists generally have less money than experimentalists- this means they can support fewer students per prof. and those that do have to teach.

 

[bjnartowt]

Something that I found useful in getting through the job hunting process was to read a lot of absurdist literature. Kafka is good, and so it Rosencrantz and Gulderstern are dead. Dilbert and Piled Higher and Deeper are also good. Reading absurdist literature helps you laugh at the situation rather than dwell on it, and if you start laughing at things, it helps you get up in the morning and keep swinging.

Hmmm...interesting remedy, and possibly useful to a guy like me who takes everything really seriously...