9

I applied for PhD in March using my exam scores. In April the university announced that they would interview candidates whose scores were above a certain threshold. They did send an interview call letter to those eligible candidates. My scores were a little below the threshold, so I accepted my fate.

Today I visited their website for some other reasons and I learned that they lowered the thresholds such that I would now qualify. However, they didn't contact the newly-eligible applicants, they just wrote that newly-eligible applicants may contact them within a week. I didn't see the notice and missed the deadline.

I feel very much unhappy by this. My scores were written in my original application. So when they published a revised cut off list, is it not their duty to check who are now eligible for interviews and send them the interview call letters?

Some of my friends are now telling me that I should've checked their website regularly. But again they (the authority) didn't send any mail stating that they have published a revised cut off list. So there was no reason for me to check the website again and hope that something would change magically!

The admission process of this season is over. What should I do now? Should I mail them asking for an interview?

Improve this question
8
  • 28
    You might write, explaining the situation, concisely, as you see it, and request an interview. ‘Betrayed’ and ‘demanding’ suggest to me there might be other things in your life to come to terms with.
    – A rural reader
    Commented Jun 2 at 21:33
  • 2
    What country? Did they say exams scores were the only criterion?
    – Azor Ahai -him-
    Commented Jun 2 at 22:35
  • 5
    Why do you expect them to actively contact newly eligible applicants? Did they original contact all eligible potential applicants personally?
    – Volker Siegel
    Commented Jun 3 at 7:49
  • 1
    @VolkerSiegel Yes, they did send the interview call letters to all the original eligible candidates. I mentioned this in my original post. Seems like this point is not clear in the edited post.
    – Soumik Mukherjee
    Commented Jun 3 at 8:00
  • 11
    Unfortunately, whether it's their fault or not, it's your problem. That's unsatisfactory but it won't be the last time something like that happens to you. If that helps, it happens to everyone once in a while.
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Jun 3 at 11:28

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
37

I think there is no harm to contact them, saying that you missed the deadline but you are very interested to the program. Chance is not high, but no harm to try.

Improve this answer
7
  • 58
    Just don't complain or accuse. That would be counterproductive.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jun 2 at 23:36
  • 3
    Good suggestion. Perhaps round this out with "do not harbour any expectation of receiving a response".
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 2 at 23:57
  • 21
    @SoumikMukherjee: Yes, definitely. Remember that (a) dealing with complaints and with unhappy people is uncomfortable for most people and (b) they are under no legal obligation to help you. Thus, if your mail makes them uncomfortable, the easiest solution for them will be to "play by the rules" and deny your request. You're asking a stranger for a favor. You want them to fell good about helping you, and you want them to look forward to interacting with you, not dread that interaction.
    – Heinzi
    Commented Jun 3 at 7:23
  • 11
    @SoumikMukherjee Don't state your unhappiness. See this interview as a privilege, not as a right.
    – AccidentalTaylorExpansion
    Commented Jun 3 at 7:25
  • 8
    You missed your application for a technical reason you can explain. That you are unhappy about it is your personal problem. They did not trick you, they just had a less than perfect application process. They know that, you do not need to explain it to them. Just as they will not blame you for not checking their website. You just want to find out whether they are interested in interviewing you.
    – Volker Siegel
    Commented Jun 3 at 7:44
16

An interview is not an acceptance.

Lowering the threshold means they wanted more candidates to fill their input hopper to the brim.

When chances are slim, prolonging the hope of those less likely to be accepted is not necessarily good for those candidates whose application has been collected just to meet an arbitrary quota.

In this fable the protagonist gets on with living life.
I recommend NOT disparaging the institution, calling it nasty names.
The future is uncertain.

Accept this misfortune and get on with living your own life. Worse things happen at sea.

Please read and meditate on this homily, too. ("curses, like chickens, come home to roost") Found at that last linked page, this is good advice for your public reaction to this happening.

The only behaviour you have control over is your own behaviour.
Make yourself proud of how you behave in the face of adversity.

If you have a strong desire to, you could keep your eye on that site. The future is uncertain, and even if it is unlikely, there may be a yet another call for applications. No one can tell you what to do. It's your decision.

I've just re-read your post noting the sequence of events as you describe them.

It is within the realm of possibility that the "second window of opportunity" was a face-saving legal formality to publicly announce the lower threshold that was used to fill their positions. Sadly, this would mean that yours was not one of the applications that made that cull, even though it may have been considered before the second announcement. Sadly, this is how the real world operates, sometimes.

Regardless, I suggest focussing on the future, not the past.
Best wishes for your endeavours going forward.

Improve this answer
10
  • 7
    While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure you've interpreted the fable correctly. The "sour grapes" fable is well known because the fox does not just "get on with living life"; he first unfairly denigrates the grapes' quality and disingenuously claims that he's better off without them.
    – cag51 ♦
    Commented Jun 2 at 22:29
  • @cag51 Yes, it's not a really good fit, that fable, except that it does portray a character trying and failing to achieve something that fate has put out of reach. I did try to stress NOT publicly "painting the objective" as undesirable just because the protagonist did not get what was wanted. Growing up is coming to understand that you can't always get what you want... (sung by one who certainly got more than most! :-)
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 2 at 22:37
  • 4
    I agree with the possibility of the "legal formality" bit, it was my first impression. For instance: "Oops, we have a candidate we do like very much (and possibly know through other means than just the regular process, like a personal recommendation) but they are just below the threshold we published, so we publish a new threshold, we take care of not telling anyone, and voilà! we can accept that candidate while complying with the published thresholds." Or other similar stories.
    – jcaron
    Commented Jun 4 at 12:15
  • 1
    @jcaron That sort of thing happens, frustratingly: elastic selection criteria. But I would not blame any bureaucratic monster, Hematite, if by that you imply the university's HR department. HR's "likes" pertain to presentable resumés and valid reference letters. Any "liking" of candidates that leads to new HR directives is done by the hiring professor . . . Same old same old.
    – user104446
    Commented Jun 4 at 12:45
  • 1
    @Fe2O3 Of course they do. Manipulative people in all sectors use fall-guys in HR, accounts, insurers, etc as scapegoats for decisions made by themselves. That's the very point I'm making.
    – user104446
    Commented Jun 5 at 17:21
5

They had your contact info, knew you applied, and know what their standards are. My assumption would be that if they wanted to interview you, they would have contacted you about it. I have never seen an interview process in which you have to figure out if you meet their requirements and contact a school to schedule an interview.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Agreed; It sounds a bit like they maybe wanted to take someone who didn't meet the original cutoff but was strong in other areas, and to be fair they 'opened' the interview process to more people but never would have actually expected to take on OP. So, in other words, I doubt they really missed out, they just weren't selected for interview.
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jun 4 at 22:04
  • @BryanKrause Yup -- also doesn't rule out the possibility that the school won't eventually reach out, but it's pretty late for that, at least in the Northern Hemisphere school year.
    – Scott Seidman
    Commented Jun 5 at 2:50
  • It sounds a bit like they maybe wanted to take someone who didn't meet the original cut-off ... But no interviews took place so they had no compelling reason to rank this hypothetical guy any higher than OP. As Lieut. Columbo would say, it's a puzzler that and had me and my wife up all last night thinkin' about it . . .
    – user104446
    Commented Jun 5 at 19:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .