Just got rejected... from grad school

[Albis]

applying to three schools for a phD is very risky. most students at umich apply to at least 5-10 phD programs hoping to get into one.

for my masters, i applied to three or four.

 

[dethman]

Originally posted by: Anonemous

Originally posted by: jagec
You only applied to three? Yikes.

beats paying too much in app. fees when you can only go into one. plus I only had my heart set on this one.

well paying too much in app fees also beats not getting into grad school at all.

 

[akodi]

Originally posted by: dethman

Originally posted by: Anonemous

Originally posted by: jagec
You only applied to three? Yikes.

beats paying too much in app. fees when you can only go into one. plus I only had my heart set on this one.

well paying too much in app fees also beats not getting into grad school at all.

but there's no point in applying to a program that you don't really like, it's at least a 5 year investment.

 

[RadioHead84]

yeah my brother applied for med school and he applied to many from all around. He was freaking out that he wasnt going to get into one that he wanted. This past week he got back from one of them that he got in so he is very happy. It must be really really hard to get into med shool cause he got like a 3.9 gpa and did a lot of research in the lab so i dont knwo what else he culd have done.

apply early i guess.

 

[akodi]

med school = teh sux

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Thought the interview went well. But the committee members said I didn't have enough curiosity and background... Coming from an engineering (BME) background into biological sciences. I asked many questions, read up on research that the interviewers were conducting, and had a lot of lab tech skills (run own lab). Only stumbling block was one guy who I've met before grill me on technical details (promoter used on a transgenic mouse model) in a project that I wasn't even responsible for.

Assuming that you were applying to PhD programs and that you still want to do this, your best course of action if you don't get in to any of your choices is to get a master's degree in the new field and do a first rate thesis. While American universities emphasize the straight to PhD path, it's often not the best course of action if you're changing fields or have a weak undergraduate record.

 

[Landroval]

Well since you know what caused them to turn you down this time, can you focus on improvement and reapply?

 

[deejayshakur]

try 45 med schools, 2 interviews, 1 acceptance. i've been desensitized to rejection. but hey, once you're in, you're in.

 

[Anonemous]

Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Maybe they were expecting you to contact the author or the research team that produced the data/written the paper.

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: Storm

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Maybe they were expecting you to contact the author or the research team that produced the data/written the paper.

What I meant was they were asking for results to something my principal investigator hadn't published yet because we needed to collect more data. They were asking for the results to something that hadn't been published yet so I did not have access. (for that they said I didn't question hard enough or had the curiosity) :angry;

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Anonemous

Originally posted by: Storm

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Maybe they were expecting you to contact the author or the research team that produced the data/written the paper.

What I meant was they were asking for results to something my principal investigator hadn't published yet because we needed to collect more data. They were asking for the results to something that hadn't been published yet so I did not have access. (for that they said I didn't question hard enough or had the curiosity) :angry;

maybe i'm missing something here, but if he/she is your PI, why do you have to wait for publication to get access to the info?

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Anonemous

Originally posted by: Storm

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Maybe they were expecting you to contact the author or the research team that produced the data/written the paper.

What I meant was they were asking for results to something my principal investigator hadn't published yet because we needed to collect more data. They were asking for the results to something that hadn't been published yet so I did not have access. (for that they said I didn't question hard enough or had the curiosity) :angry;

maybe i'm missing something here, but if he/she is your PI, why do you have to wait for publication to get access to the info?

maybe cause it was still ongoing?

edit: I always thought it was bad to reveal results in case someone (let's say another PI in the field asking me questions) could come in and use the results to build upon. especially unpublished data...

 

[JulesMaximus]

NM...I'm a moron.

 

[James3shin]

...that reason is nonsense to me. The study isn't even over it seems if your still awaiting data...there must have been another reason. We're you wearing some ugly clothes during your interview?

 

[Insomniak]

Oh man...that is sour.

Frankly, I think that'd ridiculous - I respect that admissions committees keep their own counsel, but how can one judge curiosity and interest from one question? To me, that's leaping to conclusions...

Anyway, best of luck with your other choices. I'm sure you'll pull through!

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: James3shin
...that reason is nonsense to me. The study isn't even over it seems if your still awaiting data...there must have been another reason. We're you wearing some ugly clothes during your interview?

nope, standard suit and tie. oh well, should I go appeal or would I look like a sore loser?

nm: I'll go talk to the committee members personally and find out what went wrong. If they based their judgements on only these questions than I am angry but if it was something else I'll learn from this experience.

 

[akodi]

you should be able to know what you're researching and your expected results...if you are just doing experiments and hoping to draw a conclusion, that's not a well thought out experiment. on top of that, if you're "pulling together information for a paper" you better have a clear objective and expected results! and if you say you "conduct" your own experiments you should know everything about it, you should be the authority on the protocols used and have reasons for using them.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

No. They knew that you couldn't answer the questions properly, and you failed to show that you were capable of the creative bullshitting that they desired from someone that would be accepted into that position. Why? Because C-B is required these days for obtaining grants and the like. (My whacky off-hand opinion only, I'm not currently on the "educational track" anymore, although I know someone that is. But it could be true.) IOW, you're too honest for the spot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In short, learn to bullshit better next time.

Lord knows we had too.

 

[PingSpike]

Burn down their village and consume the dead to absorb their power.

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: akodi
you should be able to know what you're researching and your expected results...if you are just doing experiments and hoping to draw a conclusion, that's not a well thought out experiment. on top of that, if you're "pulling together information for a paper" you better have a clear objective and expected results! and if you say you "conduct" your own experiments you should know everything about it, you should be the authority on the protocols used and have reasons for using them.

repeat: blind-fold experiment, not published, was still collecting data could not have known and was not given access to results since it has not been revealed nor published.

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. Because the paper had not been published and more data was needed. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

No. They knew that you couldn't answer the questions properly, and you failed to show that you were capable of the creative bullshitting that they desired from someone that would be accepted into that position. Why? Because C-B is required these days for obtaining grants and the like. (My whacky off-hand opinion only, I'm not currently on the "educational track" anymore, although I know someone that is. But it could be true.) IOW, you're too honest for the spot.

Larry, I appreciate your advice, but you could not have creatively BS'd out of that specific detailed question, especially BSing someone who's an expert in the field. That wouldn't get you very far.

edit: Yes I've been told that I was too honest. I guess that was my downfall. I told them everything I knew and work I was involved in. They didn't ask any questions regarding that but focused on aspects which were done off site or results that I couldn't have obtained (since it was still ongoing).

 

[alm4rr]

Originally posted by: Anonemous


Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. One concerned the paper I was collecting data for that had not been published and more data was needed. They wanted to know the results for it which I could not provide so I told them results were pending. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no background papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Don't tell us - we can't do anything about it. Put this in a letter and send it to them.

 

[Anonemous]

Originally posted by: alm4rr

Originally posted by: Anonemous


Update: found out I was rejected because I couldn't answer 3 questions. Three questions which even my immediate supervisor (PHD) could not answer. One concerned the paper I was collecting data for that had not been published and more data was needed. They wanted to know the results for it which I could not provide so I told them results were pending. For that I am judged with a lack of curiosity, rationale, and lack of questioning, and I should've read the background papers. There were no background papers to read because nothing had been published yet. Was I unfairly judged?

Don't tell us - we can't do anything about it. Put this in a letter and send it to them.

hehe I am