Were there any notable reasons that someone who was good on most metrics didn’t make it?
For example, someone whose application was brilliant but had a low GMA score, or someone with a great application + score who was quite late to their interview, or someone who had most of the characteristics of a good researcher but seemed really weak in one particular area.
Usually, we gave applicants the benefit of the doubt in such cases, especially early on. Later in the process we discussed strengths and weaknesses, compared candidates directly, and asked ourselves if somebody could turn out to be strongest candidates if we learned more about them. One low score usually was not decisive in these cases.
Question:
Were there any notable reasons that someone who was good on most metrics didn’t make it?
For example, someone whose application was brilliant but had a low GMA score, or someone with a great application + score who was quite late to their interview, or someone who had most of the characteristics of a good researcher but seemed really weak in one particular area.
Usually, we gave applicants the benefit of the doubt in such cases, especially early on. Later in the process we discussed strengths and weaknesses, compared candidates directly, and asked ourselves if somebody could turn out to be strongest candidates if we learned more about them. One low score usually was not decisive in these cases.