quinquenion

I was in a similar position when my undergraduate research advisor, under whom I'd co-authored 3 papers, suddenly (and unexpectedly) passed away my junior year. I was fortunate enough that one of his colleagues, another professor I also knew, offered to write my letters for me, adapting and copiously quoting a letter my advisor had written for me that the university had on file (for an undergrad fellowship that required university sponsorship). These situations are of course very individual, but I just wanted to say that it isn't unheard of for a professor to coordinate these sorts of things for a colleague. I would personally probably feel a bit weird asking a dying professor for a LOR, but you know much more about this particular situation. Regarding Interfolio, I don't know very much about it, but one drawback is that I don't think it allows professors to customise the letters by school (not all professors do this, but some do). Also, I would also suggest that you ask the various programs you're applying to if they accept Interfolio letters. I've heard that some programs have custom prompts or checklists for the professor to fill out, and thus discourage using Interfolio. YMMV Good luck!

I don't think anyone in academia believes that all graduates of top-ranked schools are smart, or that there aren't many smart graduates of lower-ranked schools. Indeed, from what I've heard from friends at "prestigious" companies, industry is actually far less sensitive to this variation than academia is. (online post covering this phenomenon: http://www.pgbovine.net/advantages-of-name-brand-school.htm ). This is unfair of course, but unlike academia, industry does not have either an implicit or explicit mission of fairness. At least in my field (mathematics), the academy tries very hard to be fair to students from lower-ranked schools. Obviously, the letters of recommendation play a huge role, so there are programs like REUs and the Budapest Semesters in Math, which give students from schools without top research programs access to better known professors whose letters will carry more weight. Standardized exams/contests like the Math Subject GRE and the Putnam also give students from lesser known schools the chance to shine, as grading is blind. However, a quick perusal of Putnam results will show that the vast majority of high scorers on these exams go to top schools. It is the case that despite these efforts, most graduate students at top programs come from other top programs. However, I would attribute much of this to the selection effect mentioned above and to the differences in coursework rigor. Classes at MIT cover 50-100% more material than at my undergraduate alma mater, a reputable but not top-ranked R1 state school (hereafter referred to as State). For this reason, all else being equal, it makes perfect sense for an adcom to pick the MIT student over the State student. The MIT student is simply better prepared. Because there is such a marked difference in coursework difficulty, it falls to the State undergrad to make the other parts of their application stronger than that of the MIT undergrad. TLDR: Unlike industry, the academy (at least in math) tries really hard to give students from lower-ranked schools a fair shot. However, because of differences in access to top researchers and more rigorous coursework, students from top-ranked schools have a built-in advantage.

I don't know anything about Indian letters of reference, and was just repeating something that's been told to me multiple times, both in person by faculty/administrators and online. One source here (an archival copy of a CHE article): http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/onepage/che-recommend.html As I said, so long as the adcom understands the "code" with which the letter is written, there's not an issue. I strongly suspect that any school that gets many British applicants (including all the top schools) will understand. However, it's still something to keep in mind.

I'd actually probably equate an upper second to 3.3-3.7, depending on the American school. In my experience*, the top American unis are familiar with the British marking system. However, it cannot hurt if you get your tutor (or other letter writer) to comment briefly on the way grades work. *I did my undergrad in the States and two masters degrees at Imperial College London. You should definitely watch out for this. I've been told that American letter writers tend to write in superlatives and "damn by faint praise", whereas British letter writers are more balanced in their assessments. Either works so long as the adcom understands the cultural conventions, but in translating from the UK to the US, sometimes applicants are at a disadvantage for that reason.

My guess is that MIT has a special arrangement, since they've had several high profile differences with NSF and Hertz in the past couple of decades. There was even apparently a time when MIT limited the number of NSF fellows that were allowed to matriculate because too many NSF fellows wanted to go to MIT, and MIT had to cover the difference between tuition and the cost-of-education allowance. That is to say, fellows were sometimes required to give up their fellowships or not matriculate at MIT. Source: http://tech.mit.edu/...24/nsf.24n.html , http://web.mit.edu/a...s00/075.00.html

There exist departments (notably, MIT) that don't completely accept the cost-of-education allowance given by NSF. That is, they do accept it, but then expect fellows to do a partial TA-ship to cover the balance. If I'm not mistaken, the NDSEG, on the other hand, actually pays full tuition. If you go to a department that has such a policy, then NDSEG probably makes more sense. Source: http://math.mit.edu/academics/grad/financial/index.html

Best way I've heard it put is: RAs work for professors, while Fellows work with professors. You don't stop doing research because you receive a fellowship. Rather, the fellowship gives you the freedom to work on whatever *you* want to, rather than what your advisor has funding to do. In some cases, you might be working on exactly the same thing either way; however, you don't have to. Perhaps you want to put together your own ambitious research project, or maybe start up an interdisciplinary collaboration between several different professors. Having a fellowship lets you do just that. It also gives you the freedom to switch advisors and projects if things don't work out. As for money, some (but not all) departments will give you a couple thousand extra each year you have the fellowship, or sometimes advisors will pay you a bit on top, since you're working for them for "free". However, this is by no means required or even expected. ETA: I just noticed that you're in the social sciences, of which I have very little knowledge. Apologies if any of this doesn't apply to you.

When I visited last month, they took us on a housing tour and said pretty much the same thing. Tang is not only older (so the rooms aren't as nice), but it's also further away from where all the other grad dorms are situated. Although the extra 10-15 minute walk doesn't seem like much (especially to those of us coming from really large universities), it apparently makes Tang somewhat more socially isolated from the rest of the on-campus grad community. If you get lucky at Tang, there're some rooms with a gorgeous view of the Charles River, but that and the low cost are the only real positives of living there. The other thing the current grads told us was that, anecdotally, if you put down Tang anywhere on your housing application, you'll probably get it. Thus, if you're trying to avoid it, don't mention it anywhere on your app. On the other hand, it also means that if you do decide you want to live there (it *is* cheaper than the alternatives), you'll probably be able to get a place.

I think there's just a very strong self-selection effect going on. Not only because people with stronger profiles are more likely to post when application season rolls around, but also because many of us were in the process of preparing for the Math GRE when we discovered the site. Although I was a lurker earlier on, I certainly credit mathgre.com with at least marginally improving my subject score. That also sort of explains why mathgre.com gets more of the math applicants. We simpler discover mathgre.com at an earlier stage in the process when preparing for the exam, and then sort stick around for application season. p.s. As one of the arguably stronger applicants this season, I can assure you that not only am I real, but very google-able as well from just my profile info.

My full profile is in the signature link, over on the mathgre forums. To summarize, I did my undergrad at a large American public university in math/chemistry, then did two masters degrees on a major fellowship to the UK in chemical biology/applied math. No formal CS training at all, but lots of research and some publications. To be honest, I don't know if my masters degrees are acceptable replacements for the M.S. in CS, so I'm not sure if I applied for M.S. + Ph.D. or just Ph.D.

I'm not international, but the generic (area II) open house email I received from MIT mentioned both overseas airfare and getting a visa. Thus, my guess is that some internationals also got the same email.

I obviously can't speak to her thought process, but my guess is that she didn't form those impressions of MIT, Princeton, and Cornell until visiting. Also, Stanford is generally considered to be better ranked than Columbia or Michigan in math, which might have played a role. Or maybe she just fell in love upon visiting, meshed well with the professors, etc.

As a semi-regular this application season over at MathematicsGRE.com, I thought I'd jump in and say that I'm personally inclined to believe owlpride's profile. She explained what happened (and her thought process behind choosing schools) in this thread: http://www.mathematicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=574