Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  2. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  3. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  4. Mark's avatar
  5. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

  6. F.E. Guerra-Pujol's avatar

    Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…

  7. Claudio's avatar

    I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…

Against “secret” waitlists in PhD admissions

Brian Leiter

Philosopher Tim O'Keefe (Georgia State) writes:

I’d like to speak up against having “secret” or “hidden” waitlists, as the practice has been described to me by applicants to graduate programs. (Those are their names for what’s going on.) Basically, programs accept, waitlist, and reject a bunch of applicants, but there is still a group of people in limbo, hearing no word about the status of their application for a long time. In at least in some cases, programs are using this group of applicants as a sort of backup, informal “hidden” waitlist—applicants who have a very low chance of ultimately getting in, but who are being held in reserve just in case they end up being needed. (That this is what is going on is confirmed by word from some departments after they’re contacted by applicants asking what’s up.)

I think that this is a really crappy way of treating applicants. They deserve to know in a timely manner what’s going on with their applications so that they can start making informed decisions about what they’ll be doing for next year, and being kept in limbo when a bunch of decisions from a program have been released sparks a lot of anxiety. It also jams up the overall admissions process as people can’t start accepting offers when they don’t know what’s up, and they have to contact departments individually to try to find out where they stand.

I can’t think of any good reason to do this, but maybe I’m missing something, and I’d be curious to hear from departments that do this what their reasons are. (Or more generally, reasons for not informing people of their status fairly soon – within a couple of weeks – after making their initial round of acceptances.) Why not just decide on a reasonable size for the WL pool, based on past admission seasons and factoring in how uncertain things are, and then put that number of people on the WL and formally reject everybody else? Or if people think they need a backup pool, then go ahead and explicitly inform people that that’s where they stand. Say something like the following: “We are not formally denying you admission at this time, and if an unexpectedly high proportion of people we admit (including people currently on our waitlist) turn us down, there is a possibility we’ll offer you admission. However, the chances of this happening are fairly low.” Obviously, this wouldn’t be the most welcome news to most applicants, but they’d greatly prefer hearing it than simply being kept in limbo with no word. And I don’t see the benefit to the graduate programs either in keeping people in the dark, rather than letting people know where they stand.

Thoughts from readers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 responses to “Against “secret” waitlists in PhD admissions”

  1. L.A. Paul

    I am UNC’s Director of Admissions. I am aware that applicants would like more information, and I understand that this is a stressful time. However, I believe that, in UNC’s case, sending out rejection notices before the start of April is not in the best interest of the applicant or the Department. This is why we have not sent out rejection notices yet.

    Let me explain: UNC does not have a “secret waitlist”, or anything resembling such. Rather, we have found that, on occasion, as our list of who is considering our offer of admission evolves after the campus visit (as prospective students with offers begin to make decisions), we need to revisit our waitlist. (We retain extensive notes on candidates at every round of the process.) In particular, we may revisit our waitlist because we are looking to have an entering class that is intellectually diverse, and as the season progresses and people start to make decisions, that diversity can be imperiled.

    The reason we have not sent out mass rejections is that occasionally, when candidates who failed to make it past an early round are reassessed when we revisit the waitlist, a candidate is subsequently brought forward and officially waitlisted or admitted. If we rejected applicants early in the way that some people apparently think we should, we could not do this. (Rejecting candidates entails that we officially process them for rejection through the Graduate School.)

    Candidates who have not been offered admission at this time from UNC can infer that their chances of admission are not high. Yet, they are not non-existent, and as soon as we can give candidates further information, we will. (We expect to begin sending rejections at the start of April. However, we are waiting on our current prospectives to make decisions, and so there is only so much we can do. We are doing the best we can, and we urge all prospectives to make decisions in a timely manner.)

    My assumption has been that candidates prefer a small chance of admission to a zero chance of admission. (If they don’t, they have the power to change the situation. They can withdraw themselves from consideration.) It would be much easier to rush through the process and to send mass rejections early. But this is not in the best interests of the applicants or the Department. It is not appropriate for me to give further information about the internal workings of the admissions process, but I hope this explanation helps our applicants to understand why we have not been prompt in sending rejection notices. I am sorry that the process is drawn out and difficult, and for the anxiety this causes.

    Reply
  2. Former Graduate Student

    I was rejected from the PhD program that I ended up attending. I was not at all upset to get the phone call informing me that my rejection was being rescinded. I knew that I wasn't a top choice, but that caused me to work all the harder once I got there. I appreciated knowing where I stood and making my decision between the schools that admitted me, and I appreciated throwing that all away and attending the program that had rejected me.

    I appreciate LA Paul's suggestion that for some departments it would be impossible to admit rejected students. And it may be that for some departments, doing what I suggest would result in often admitting previously rejected students, which would not be great. But I think rejecting the students that almost certainly won't get admitted, and then every couple of years having to rescind one of those rejections, is in the best interests of the candidates.

    Reply
  3. Me

    Former Grad Students,
    Your last sentence suggests that you do not understand what Paul is saying. She is saying that once the candidate is passed on to the GRAD SCHOOL (an administrative unit with a dean) as rejected, the GRAD SCHOOL will not permit the department to then offer a space in the program. The same sort of thing happens at my school with hiring. Once we have REJECTED someone (again this info goes on to an administrative office), we are not allowed to revisit their application. A rejection involves an assessment that the candidate is unfit for the job.

    Reply
  4. Current Grad Student

    If "hidden waitlist" just picks out some pool of applicants who haven't been officially accepted or waitlisted but nonetheless still have an outside chance of admission, then I think there are a few good reasons to have a hidden waitlist. L.A. Paul brought out some of those reasons in her comment above.

    Another consideration has to do with funding prospective student visits. Many departments will pay some amount to defray the costs for both accepted and waitlisted students to attend an official prospective student visit. If the proposal is to increase the size of the waitlist rather than retain a hidden waitlist, then that will increase the cost to the department of funding prospective student visits. There might be good budgetary reasons for departments not to put themselves in a position in which they have to fly out lots of students.

    But even leaving that stuff aside, while I realize that the admissions process is stressful (I went through it a few years ago), I guess I just don't think that departments have any fiduciary responsibility when it comes to applicants. As long as departments let applicants know the status of their applications before the admissions season is over, then I think they've done all that they are required to do. But maybe there are professional standards that I'm unaware of.

    Reply
  5. Current Grad

    I also appreciate Professor Paul's comments, but I don't see much of an answer to the question in them. It isn't so much 'Why not send out rejections early?' than it is 'Why not notify applicants of status early on?' My guess is that departments don't officially add applicants to the wait list because they don't want to get their hopes up. Less charitably, perhaps, they don't want to deal with the increased questioning, etc., that naturally comes from applicants being placed on the waitlist. But I see no reason that committees cannot send out simultaneous emails to the following groups: (i) admitted applicants, (ii) waitlisted, (iii) waitlisted, but highly unlikely (perhaps not calling it a waitlist, but notifying them of indeterminate status nonetheless), and (iv) outright rejected. There is no way that prospectives can "make decisions in a timely manner" if they don't know what their actual status is at a given program. Sure, they *might* be able to infer it from a lack of rejection. But it's important to remember that a lot of official rejections seem to be processed through some sort of central university office, meaning that the decision reaches the applicant at a much later date than when the decision was made at the department. That puts applicants in the highly uncomfortable position of soliciting status, which many of us aren't wont to do for fear of rocking the boat. What is so hard about being more transparent in this process? I can't imagine anyone being upset *at* the department for hearing an honest assessment of their standing.

    I'd also say that I think outright rejected applicants should be the first to know of their status. Surely there are some decisions that are essentially the equivalent of "desk rejections." But why put someone through the mental anguish of wondering "what if" when it's perfectly clear they have no chance? Just send them a kind but firm email letting them know their true status. If an official rejection has to go through the university central offices later on, that's fine. Just warn the applicant that they can expect to receive the such an official letter at a later date, but that you nonetheless wanted to do them the good service of informing them earlier rather than later. Remember that one department's "desk rejection" is another department's admit. So keeping that applicant in ignorance does a disservice to everyone, not just the applicant. And I don't think I know any applicants who wouldn't appreciate this sort of kind email. (I, for one, very much appreciated the kind and prompt rejection email that Ishani Maitra sent out last year as Michigan's admissions chair, especially given that it would have been a top choice of mine despite other very competitive offers.)

    Reply
  6. Tim O'Keefe

    The main issue here is with communicating with applicants. So the comment by “Me” above is largely beside the point. Let’s presume that, for some school, once the department sends in the official form with “deny admission” checked off, then that decision is irrevocable. (That’s not the case at my school, but perhaps it is at some.) OK, so don’t send in the form. Still, nothing prevents a department from sending out a mass e-mail to people of the sort I outlined above: “We’re not officially rejecting you at this point, because there is still an outside chance if something unexpected happens we’d want to admit you.” Why keep people guessing?

    Similarly, “Current Grad Student” suggests that applicants need to be kept in the dark on a “hidden waitlist” because, if a department has a policy of having all accepted and waitlisted students invited to a visitation day where expenses are defrayed, then the expense would be too great. But this seems to me to get things backwards. Instead of keeping people in the dark because of a visitation day policy, just adjust the department’s visitation day policy. Invite however many people, and defray whatever amount of their expenses, as your budget allows, and that you think helps advance your interests in attracting a good cohort. And then tell people on the “low wait list” what’s up.

    But if you’re looking to enroll a cohort of 8 students or so, and you’ve 200+ or 300+ applicants, and you’ve got some data about your yield from past years, there should be some sort of limit on how large even such an “extended waitlist” should be, to keep from unnecessarily stringing things out, even if you want to make sure that you have an intellectually diverse waitlist.

    Reply
  7. Geoff Pynn

    We do something like this. After our initial decisions are made, applicants fall into one of four groups: (i) departmentally funded offers, (ii) admission offers waitlisted for departmental funding but nominated for other university funding opportunities, (iii) rejections, and (iv) "hidden wait list" (not what I would call it but I understand why the term seems right from the outside) — i.e. applications that we have not yet made a decision about. As an MA program we always recruit some number of students after April 15 from group (iv), and for a variety of reasons (some owing to the unique recruitment dynamics of terminal MA programs, most to local institutional facts), I don't think we could do away with it. But I agree that it is shabby not to inform students that they are in that group, and we have not always done so right away. So, mea culpa. We will do better next year.

    Reply
  8. Former Graduate Student

    I had hoped that the first sentence of the second paragraph would suggest that I did understand. There are some cases, like UNC or your school, in which it wouldn't be in the best interest of the candidates to reject them if there's any chance they might be accepted. But in general, I think it is.

    Reply
  9. PhD applicant

    As one who is experiencing it right now, I want to thanks Tim for addressing this limbo situation and share my experience.
    I don't know if UC-Davis has a hidden waitlist, but I haven't heard back from them yet. I have emailed two persons there more than three weeks ago and haven't received any responses yet. I really don't know how should I make sense of it.
    A more awful case is my Notre Dame HPS application. I know they sent out emails of admission as well as rejection. I also read about a waitlist on a forum. I am on none of them. I contacted the director and the Reilly Center via email more than two weeks ago and has got no responses yet. I called the center few days a go, but nobody answered. I left a message on the phone with my number, but still nothing. It seems that I am totally invisible!
    I know I don't have much chance there, but I would rather to be informed about my application status.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress