cwr

If you're doing HEP, then a Macbook is almost required. You can always dual boot or otherwise configure a PC to run what you need, but everything will run out-of-the-box in a Mac, which is why I use the word "almost." As far as getting it subsidized, I think this is relatively standard as well. Worst case, you could ask your advisor or department if there are funds for this. My undergrad advisor/department paid for my Macbook when I was starting out a few years ago, and I will probably need to replace it before I start my Ph.D., so I'll see if I can get my new department to cover it when the time comes.

I use a Macbook Pro (256 GB SSD, 8 GB Ram, 2.6 GHz Intel i5), which is essentially the standard setup for HEP-ex, and it works fine for my purposes. Then again, anything computationally heavy/long I will do remotely just for the sake of convenience, so if you're going to be doing heavy lifting on your own machine (by which I mean working remotely on a university/lab cluster is not feasible), I would not take this recommendation too seriously.

Oh, that's awesome! Congrats on the Marshall. Did you do a one- or two-year? And okay, I feel a tiny bit better then, because hopefully I would get something more relating to things I've done. But, realistically, no one goes into the Hertz expecting to win, right? I think you just try and enjoy the interview process, and then if something good comes out of it, even better. (Which was essentially my attitude towards all of these international fellowships.) You bring up a good point about Harvard having more resources for the Hertz than your undergrad; hopefully, if I struck out with the Hertz and/or DoE this year, Princeton will have some resources to help when I get there.

Which fellowship, if you don't mind me asking? I understand what you mean about not having people from your undergrad to ask, because I dealt with this all year for fellowships. With the exception of the NSF, everything I applied for was uncharted waters for students from my university. The best we had was one faculty member who was a previous winner for one of them, but no current or former students to ask. Okay, so that's in keeping with what I heard about the interviews (the obscure, almost unanswerable questions). Are you (or did they have reason to think that you would be) familiar with autocorrelation coefficients of a system? Because I would have just stared blankly at them if I was asked that, because I haven't the foggiest idea what an autocorrelation coefficient is. It's pretty disheartening to hear that four years of research is looked at as not enough independent/creative input, especially considering my field, because usually huge teams work on papers/analyses. Best of luck in applying this year, if you do. I would say – if you can bring yourself to – why the hell not? The worst thing that happens is they say no, and we can all share in the rejection next year. I'm sure the DoE would help your case, but either way, that's a huge deal. Realistically, I'm trying to target the CSGF for next year, since DoE funding in high-energy physics is huge, so getting the CSGF would be a huge boost for me.

I was going to make a snide remark about the "Nigerian Prince" scammers changing tactics given the economic downturn, thought better of it because this seems like a reasonably earnest young man trying to go to graduate school in the US, and then checked his Reddit post history and realized he's also seeking investors in an effort to open a casino in Nigeria. So, it's totally a scam. Hopefully the mods will lock/delete this thread. Link to his Reddit post history: https://www.reddit.com/user/hulega. His posts in /r/education and /r/GradSchool exactly coincide (within an hour) with the time of this post. And, in case he deletes the Reddit account, screenshots to tell the story: http://imgur.com/a/sfwEp. I would have just attached them here, but they exceed the size limit.

I am not qualified to speak on the specifics (your department, A&M, the exam, etc.), but the Dean of the Graduate Division at my (undergraduate) university would always say, in advice to undergraduates applying for their Ph.D., that: "if they don't fund you, they don't want you." Now, I realize that funding is a stickier situation in the humanities/arts and some social sciences (for the record, though, this guy is an English professor), but you're talking about engineering, where funding ought to be much more plentiful. I understand that this is further complicated by the fact that you're international, rather than domestic, but I would seriously consider whether you can afford to accept their offer. Do you have the financial capacity to pay for this degree, should you fail to get a TA position? Would you rather jump into it unfunded, rather than wait a year to reapply? (I don't pretend to have the answer to these questions, and hopefully others who know more about TAMU's program will chime in, but I think you're right to at least consider walking away.) Best of luck!

I was going to ask which you meant, but – after thinking about it – I realized it had to be the Hertz. It really does feel like an old boys club, doesn't it? I can't really complain because I didn't apply this year (I backed out of applying to all grad fellowships other than NSF, focusing on intl. awards and Ph.D. programs), but the Hertz just feels almost purposefully exclusionary. Save for a friend of mine (who was an MIT undergrad, surprise surprise) that won the Hertz last year, I didn't know a single person who I could ask about the process since I didn't do my undergrad at one of these chosen few institutions. How did you find the process itself? Did you make the interview? (And, screw the Hertz, congratulations on your CSGF!)

Wow! That's incredible. Best of luck to you! I'm doing Part III next year, but thankfully my spot in a (physics) Ph.D. program isn't contingent upon my marks at Cambridge.

Does this mean that you need that finish in Part III, or in your current program? Because asking for a top-half distinction (which I assume means finishing in the top half of those receiving distinction) in Part III is really quite a request, especially when couched as "oh yeah, just get a top-half distinction in Part III, that's all."

Just agreeing with @TakeruK regarding applying to a relatively large number of schools. If a student wants to apply to the top programs in their field, it would be foolish to only apply to a couple of them. I applied to a large number of top programs, and while I had done enough research into the programs to exclude some otherwise very good programs on the basis their research programs in my field (e.g. Stanford, Harvard), I didn't anticipate getting into all of my top five choices, so I had a lot of work to do after decisions came out deciding exactly which program was right for me. The search before applying for me consisted of essentially asking "is this program strong? are there good, well-regarded faculty here? are they doing the research that I want to do?" while afterward, after being admitted, I could afford to ask much more precise questions "how will I enjoy my time here? what's the culture of the program? do I get along with the faculty/students? how does funding – both my personal support and the group's own money – compare? will I get enough attention/support from my advisor(s)?" I suppose this isn't exactly what OP was getting at, since after I was admitted I wasn't asking basic questions but very specific ones (as opposed to people asking "is this program good?"), but I definitely understand why someone would need to do additional digging after being admitted to a program, since it makes sense to apply to a large number of schools when shooting for a top program where being admitted is very low probability.

Thanks for this. It makes me feel better. I'm generally pretty social, and I just wanted to get a sense of the culture with regard to undergrads versus graduate students. I'm planning to take some foreign language classes (French) because I'll spend 3 years of my Ph.D. living in Europe, so the language will help a lot. I've heard that this is a nice way to meet some more people (usually undergrads, I'm assuming) outside of your program, since the classes are small. I'm also planning to do some sort of activities on campus (at least intramural, if not club, sports), so I'm sure I'll meet some people through that. It's just nice to hear that any divide between undergrads and grad students is probably due to apathy, as opposed to contempt or resentment.

Different departments hold their own admit day/open house, so I don't doubt that the MPP program had their own admit day. My open house (for Physics Ph.D.) was just over a week ago, and Chemistry has had at least three different open houses (based upon signs I saw in the hotel). It might just be that CS doesn't do an open house.

Thank you for that. It is my impression that this is the latter case – smaller field, somewhat burnt out, no one I know is talking about this, let alone as the "next big thing" – rather than the former. The more important consideration, however (which is the reason that I made the decision that I did), is that the research in question doesn't excite me, and I know that being passionate about your work is hugely important for a Ph.D. program. At the end of the day, I could easily be an idiot and have turned down an opportunity to work in a great field, but if that's the case, I will live with it. @TakeruK Yikes, those (particularly the sexist comments) sound terrible. I'm also glad to hear that there were consequences for that.

I'm currently at a visit for a program that is very highly regarded in my field (and in physics, admissions decisions come before visit weekends, so the department is attempting to sell students they've already admitted on attending), and I have gone from neutral to HELL NO! in one day because of the interactions I've had with people here. This is a stark contrast to other visits I've had, where during all of them, I very much liked the school in question and could easily see myself there. So, I'm wondering: What are you visit weekend horror stories? Either the worst one(s) you've endured yourself or heard from others? Mine is best summarized by the following: The program's faculty in my (single, specific) area of interest (which was indicated very clearly on my application) waited until the first day of the visit to say "by the way, we have no more funding with which to take students", but then made no attempt to sugar coat it, leaving some of us to think "then why am I even here?" One of the faculty in a related area tried very hard to convince us to switch to his area (nothing wrong with this so far, of course), like many others. However, when I remained unmoved, he began to suggest that the work I was interested in was a poor career move (when there are literally thousands of scientists doing it) but his field (where there are dozens) was much, much better for job prospects. One of the faculty (the same as above), when I still was unmoved by his argument to switch fields and said that I had solid offers from good groups in my area of interest, insisted that I tell him which groups I was planning to work with. (These are two very strong groups at two universities ranked as high, or higher, than the one in question.) Out of courtesy, I told him. He then proceeded to (mercilessly, and willfully inaccurately, as I could tell by his story changing slightly once he realized how much I knew about these groups) deride both groups, saying in summary that these would be a career mistake. On the upside, I have had great interactions with some of the graduate students and two or three professors who seemed very nice, and this convinced me to stay for the rest of the visit (I was considering leaving to visit a competing institution in the area whose visit I passed on to come here). In any case, let's hear them. Visit horror stories!

I'm not upset with the result (Honorable Mention), but I'm a bit confused about the reviews. R1: E/VG, R2: G/G, R3: E/E Which is fine, it seems like the 2nd referee wasn't very much of a fan, so I was looking forward to their comments (addressing the weak areas of the proposal), only to find nothing constructive – or critical, for that matter. The most "critical" thing any reviewer wrote was R2 in the IM section: "The proposed research is important and it appears that the applicant is enthusiastic about pursuing it. He seems to have a good understanding of the relevant science, but more detailed information about the physics and engineering challenges would be useful." (–– Edit: I should add that, in my field, this, asking for more discussion of the engineering challenges, is tantamount to saying "this proposal should have been at least 10 pages longer and went well beyond the depth of the student's (and their PI's) research", so it's not really useful at all ––) And their Summary Comments were: "The applicant has done an outstanding job in his academic career thus far. He displays a passion both for science and for increasing the opportunities in science for underrepresented groups." This was the guy who gave G/G, because the E/E and E/VG reviewers had nothing remotely critical to say. From talking to friends about their reviews, it just sounds like a lot of variability in terms of the marks given (G vs. VG vs. E) and reviewer comments. (A friend of mine had a critique from someone who gave him an E in the same category, for example.) I'm not upset about the result; I just wish we got more useful feedback...