velli

My impression is that a lot of folks know that there are significant factors out of your control when it comes to the NSF. Obviously, getting the award would make everyone involved happy, but an HM is worth a lot too and doesn't hurt you if you already have sufficient funding for your PhD. If you don't need external funding in order to do the research you want to do (e.g. as a joint advisee between two PI's), winning the NSF is icing on the cake for you. It could also mean your program or PI can take on an extra student, which is maybe the bigger reason there's pressure to win it.

I honestly don't know how financial aid will work at the graduate level, but I've known their financial aid office to be incredibly lenient about internal deadlines for undergraduates (as in they'd take forms that are months overdue). Hopefully, you can work your problem out if you get on it immediately.

I guess I'll be derailing the conversation a bit, but it's nice to vent. My current PI's upset that I won't be doing my PhD at my current (undergraduate) institution, even though I'm switching fields and won't be in his department. He has no stake in this and he knows it! I'm even going to his alma matter, which he's raved about for three years. Both schools are comparable in academics (both ranked #1 according to USNews, but we all know those are handwavy rankings). My home institution might be arguably better for logistical reasons (commute, location, ease of collaboration), but I just felt more comfortable on my visit to the other school. I wish he'd back off a bit trying to persuade me, but I'll have to deal with it until I successfully defend my thesis.

At this point, you need to know. I wouldn't write specifically hounding them for a decision, but it might be worthwhile to touch base with them to express interest or thanks or something. If they can't give you any information, you should proceed with the decision-making as if it's a rejection. You can always cross that bridge if the waitlist comes through.

Yup, super disappointing. Two of my reviewers were extremely supportive of my transition from mathematics to life sciences and were happy with my academic record (both gave E/E), but my last reviewer specifically said that I should have applied for the award in applied mathematics instead of life sciences for a biophysics proposal. It's upsetting because the other two sounded really enthusiastic about my application.

I don't know how to feel about my application. E/E, E/E, G/F. I'm proud of having impressed two reviewers, but it seems like the last reviewer didn't like my research proposal very much and completely missed my broader impacts discussion. I'm disappointed, but I'll get it next year (knock, knock, knock on wood)!

You have one application to the entire biosciences program. The three you list are programs that feature research and training you wish to take part in. The Stanford biosciences committee meets to recommend you as an interviewee for one of the programs you list. You do not get waitlisted by the other two. In rare cases (so I've been told), the committee will recommend you for a home program you did not list if they think your research interests are better met by another home program. For example, if you're interested in biophysical problems in neuroscience, you can list both with the same application since your research interests make sense in the context of either. Stanford will likely place you in the neuroscience pool, since their biophysics program is largely focused on proteins and structure (side note: their biophysics program is very structure focused even though they have an entirely separate structural bio program which didn't recruit this year!). The program selections is just a thing that helps with flexibility and placing you with the correct training program and cohort for your interests, since programs vary so much from school to school. The three choices aren't so much for giving you extra chances at admission -- you basically only have one shot at the entire umbrella program and you'll only be passed between your choices if there's an issue with how you would fit in with your first choice program. The final lab you join really doesn't matter since most research you'll be doing is so interdisciplinary anyway. You will be allowed to select basically any lab under biosciences or bioengineering regardless of your home program.

Wow, those are absurdly low numbers. Best of luck. Stanford's absolutely amazing.

Adding to Ragneo's point, the process feels kind of like a crapshoot from our ends, but the programs do a very good job picking their students. Most professors at certain schools will be able to tell you whether or not you should apply to their program (i.e. whether you are a competitive applicant) if you can send them a short blurb (<200 words) about your background and research interests with an attached CV/resume. At some level of academic competency, it just comes down to your letters and your fit in the program, which will be obvious during an interview. There's a reason the same people are more or less at every interview you have. In fact, if you go through this thread, you'll see people earning admissions to almost exactly the programs you would expect from their profiles.The exceptions (either happy or sad) always cause the most noise, which is fair. This process can be fairly transparent if you make the effort to sufficiently research every program that interests you and spend the time writing emails to professors and current students who might never get back to you (though I've only had one out of maybe ten faculty members not reply to me).

Professors don't want to hear that you're 100% set on a sub-field of research. They need to know you can handle doing 2-3 rotations without hating the research you're doing. Your interests will change, so you might want to change "I will study X in graduate school" to "I understand my interests have room to grow, but right now I find X most interesting." Obviously, I don't know what you said, but if you think the problem is research fit, the task for the next cycle is emailing potential advisors before applying to make sure they think you're a good fit for the program and that they will be recruiting graduate students for their labs. You also applied to at least five programs that I think were "reach" schools, given your stats and research background. Maybe apply to more middle tier programs? Those programs you got interviews from are no joke -- if you don't care too much about prestige, quite a few programs out there would be willing to take you. A few things to consider next time around.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee. Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews. It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people). My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews. Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

There's not too much to do in the Palo Alto area. You'll see most of what you'd care for within a year of living there. My opinion is that it feels like a town for fairly well off families (safe and quiet -- perfect for raising your kids). You've probably heard it a bunch during your interview, but if you want some fun, you'll probably be heading into San Jose or SF. Like Chubberrubber said, having a car will give you much more flexibility. There's a lot of good food (California is super diverse and the cuisine reflects that) and lots of cool things to see and do, but they're relatively inaccessible with just a bike and a bus/train ticket. Just as an aside, the Stanford shopping center is one of the more upscale places I've seen -- if you like shopping, be prepared to realize that something like J. Crew is one of your cheapest options. I personally wouldn't be able to budget for Palo Alto shopping on the 34k stipend (but you can drive to more affordable malls 15 minutes out if you have a car!). This is just my mini-rant because I like shopping.

Gas is expensive in California -- at least it's slightly to much more expensive than I've seen anywhere else. I guess you might be renewing your insurance in California, too, in which case I can give you an estimate of what it might cost. I'm a "good driver" of a 15 year old car and I pay around $400 pretty crappy insurance. There is PLENTY of parking, though you're not going to want to drive to lab/class. Palo Alto's pretty out of the way of a lot of things, and there are plenty of times where you'd be glad to have the car. It's not inconvenient enough that you'd need a car, but given that you already have one, I'd recommend bringing it. It'll be worth whatever you'd need to pay for insurance and parking.

Your end goal is a PhD program anyway, so I think I would advise against going into so much debt to complete a masters unless money doesn't matter to you (and it sounds like it does). What do you want to do with your PhD? If you're like to go into teaching and you're really worried about the prestige of the institution at which you'll be doing your PhD, you might want to consider taking a year off and reapplying. That being said, it's certainly a huge gamble and there's no guarantee you'd be in a better position a year from now. You're in a hard spot, but I don't think the MA will be worth doing unless it's your terminal degree.

Congrats! It's amazing that you made a decision so soon with all of those offers! Was there a specific factor that made MIT stand out above the rest?