GPA

There was some kind of "model of PhD admissions" discussion about a year ago on this very forum; the conclusion (which I agree with) is that some elements of an applicant's profile are definitely more binary (ie. you're above the threshold or you're not), while other elements are "graded" on a more continuous scale. I would think GPA, and to some extent GMAT score, are more of the threshold type, while the SOP/fit factor and past coursework would have a finer appreciation scale (e.g. great/very strong/strong/average/mediocre/bad) in the minds of decision makers.

well if thats the case, does my gpa make the cutoff for top 10 schools?

Who knows? I would think it does, but at some point it's both highly unpredictable and depends on where that undergrad degree was.

If the rest of your app is really outstanding, I don't think a 3.75 vs 3.9 GPA makes much of a difference.

Its going to come down to my SOP and Gmat if thats true. Still a LONG way to go but I'm excited that theres still a chance for a top school. I'll be around and I'll let you guys know how it goes in about 1 to 1.5 years from now. lol.

Whats a "top ten" school?

Depends on who you ask, and they may differ for each field of PhD study. I'm guessing that if you took a survey on an "overall" top ten, you'd probably get around 20 schools that get significantly more than 0 votes.

Exactly

Depends also on the specific area and field. Its more who you work with than the school itself in many cases.

I rank them according to the number of publications in the top 3 journals of whatever your phd is in. The data is publically available on UT dallas, just google it.

Yeah, I have seen it. Problem is, if I remember it correctly, it is not weighted for school size or by department. You could have a lot of lame faculty, but two or three highly productive and recognized faculty in specific areas who are not reflected in the stats. My feeling is it really depends on the productivity of your advisor/committee and your personal productivity when it is time to find a job... not the school per se. "Top" schools are usually so because of their endowment and overall size--but that is my opinion. Also, if your faculty has associate editors or editors of A journals, that is a great program in my book. Also, if faculty are active reviewers for As, all the better. Especially as faculty change year to year--one new prominent faculty member can change the whole dynamic and value of a program--all the more if that new faculty is in your research area.

The most important question is will you be able to publish while in the program in A journals? One A pub is huge for a newly minted Phd--and worth going to a sub-"top-twenty" school.

If "top-ranked" means the best Ph.D. programs, this is a decent quick assessement. But, as others have correctly pointed out, there are many factors, e.g., those rankings don't citation-weight the pubs either, as far as I know. Another good way is to ask faculty. They know their colleagues and the research that they do, so it is just a matter of the "rankings" being filtered through their subjective lens (you might want to discount their own institution).

I understand the factors. Ranking schools is kind of like stereotypes: there is some truth to it but there are always exceptions. I just feel you cant go wrong with a school thats at least perceived to be better than not. Of course, I'd rather be a non top 20 with more productive faculty but all else equal, I'd choose the better school. How about that?