1

In the help centre, there's a page giving advice on what topic to ask or not ask about : https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

Specifically, in the "What topics should I avoid?", it is written

for an overall assessment of your profile or odds of admission. We do not offer individualized advice; our general advice is available here.

The "here" refer to the question How are Ph.D. applications evaluated in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Am I likely to get into school X?. The question is focused on PhD admission and US-centric.

In the comment, a moderator has added

Q: I asked a very specific question about my profile; why was my post closed as a duplicate of this vague question? A: Sorry, we cannot accurately predict your odds of admission from your "statistics" (see the first part of the below answer for an explanation) and providing individualized advice is not our role in any case. Rather, we have consolidated our advice to this one page. If you can "boil down" your question to something of more general interest (e.g., "how does X affect my odds"), consider editing your question to ask this boiled down version instead.

The comment partially solves the issue, but the question is still focused on PhD in the US. It doesn't seem to check the box for "general" advice for any other type of admission/profile (in another country, for another type of post/etc).

As a result, I'm hesitant to flag certain questions as out of scope. Is the help centre referring to any type of profile evaluation/odds of admission, or only for PhD? Should the help centre be modified or the CW question be edited to include the comment under it with some clarification?

2 Answers 2

4

This answer addresses only this part:

As a result, I'm hesitant to flag certain questions as out of scope.

For a question about an individual's chances of achieving something (admissions, paper acceptance etc.), I think it's typically better to flag as duplicate of some suitable duplicate target (if it exists; it does for US graduate admissions as you point out) or as depending on individual factors. Closure for these reasons communicates to the asker much more clearly why the action was taken than does closure for being out-of-scope, especially when it involves topics like Ph.D. admissions for which many questions are on-topic.

1
  • that is fairly sensible
    – JackRed
    Apr 14 at 14:53
4

Perhaps we should rephrase the wiki like this:

for an overall assessment of your profile or odds of admission. We do not offer individualized advice (though we do have general advice for graduate admissions in the US available here).

2
  • it looks like the simpler solution
    – JackRed
    Apr 14 at 20:57
  • would you be able to change to that? It seems from the upvote it is an acceptable solution (I also agree)
    – JackRed
    May 22 at 10:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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