zapster

I'm shortlisted for donating an organ.  I have discussed this with my PI and hes being supportive.  I believe everyone should.  I'll keep you and your baby in my prayers

1. I'm afraid you have to put in the hours on this one. It's not as hard as it looks though, it is pretty easy to eliminate a large number of profs. if you know what you are looking for. Plus going through all their research is often very enlightening. Sometimes the stated research interests do not give a complete or accurate picture or may not have been updated in a while. I found reading the abstracts of the latest few publications of potential POIs to be the most rewarding process for identifying profs. I would like to work with.
 
2. Yes do send your CV, but also send a much shorter summary of your key positives in the body of the mail - sometimes they might just be too busy to open attachments!
 
3. What field are you looking at ?
 
4. Contacting say around 2-4 profs. working in the same broad related area within a department may in fact be a good idea. If they have some overlap of interests it might actually increase your chances.

The best advice I got on the GRE Subject Test was take it if (and only if) you will do well on it.  Unless, of course, you are applying to a program that requires it -- but none of mine did. 

I am dealing with a similar situation - but at the moment I am gravitating towards the lower ranked school with the better faculty and research fit - it just seems right

Disregarding the above negativity...I think you could get into a good school if you are able to clearly explain why you are interested in a policy degree. Might I ask? If I read your post correctly you're getting an MBA currently? Have you found it's not giving you the skills/background you'd want to pursue your interests in policy?
 
Also, I'd advise you to find a program that fits your interest more than the prestige level. While there are certainly some schools that have the Ivy League name behind them and others that are very renowned in policy and have higher prestige than others, not choosing a school based more on fit and interests will make your time in that program not as worthwhile.

If you put an idea out there, you should be aware that it's now in the public domain and anyone can pick up on it and essentially write your paper before you manage to. For that reason it may be wise to strategize about when you start presenting a new idea. If it happens to be the case that there is someone in the audience who works on the same problem as you and is familiar with the literature, you might be supplying them with precisely what they're missing to make their own theory work. In that case, they may beat you to the punch. So, someone could take your idea and run with it, but if their new paper is based on a presentation you gave and on any written materials that originated from your work, then that contribution should be cited and you be credited with coming up with the approach or proposing the idea (even if you didn't have a full theory of it at the time) or whatever else is relevant. If that is not done, you're looking at what you can call "idea stealing." If your original work was cited but then essentially someone beat you to writing the paper that would result from the idea, then that person is perfectly within their rights. It's all about how the credit to the original ideas was given.
 
Of course it still sucks if instead of collaborating, this hypothetical audience member doesn't approach you to discuss your contribution to their work, but I suppose that's not anything out of bounds. Just kind of sneaky and someone who I would mark as a person I want to have nothing to do with.
 
I know this is a real problem in some fields, but in mine people are happy to cite several people for coming up with basically the same idea at roughly the same time (independently). It's terrible if someone beats you to writing your own paper, so it's important to worry about this, but you also need to balance that with being out there and spreading your ideas. So it's a tough problem, but one that everyone deals with. I tend to opt to be out there and be known for saying certain things even if the papers come much later, because I believe it gives me the right image and authority so that people know to associate my ideas with my name. But yes, it is a risk that someone else will beat me to the final punch line.

to stand out when all else is equal

a shortened version of may the best of luck be with you - similar to may the force be with you. I think I'll start writing "Best of Force" now, that sounds good  

a shortened version of may the best of luck be with you - similar to may the force be with you. I think I'll start writing "Best of Force" now, that sounds good  

OK, first of all: yes, this is normal! Everyone is university, especially in the natural sciences depending on experiments/ programming/ .... knows this, because one small mistake can render hours of effort useless. You're not alone in this. Second of all: don't panic. I know it sounds ridiculous, but thinking clearly is the only thing that is going to help right now. 
 
It's obvious your situation is unbearable to you right now, so you need to change something. Consider your options: 
 
- Quitting. Is it worth it to quit, after you put in so much work? Aren't you going to regret it? Would research in a different place be more successful? Veering away from grad school entirely: do you have realistic job opportunities in the field you're in? And could you move back to a place where you're happier/ have more social interaction? 
 
- Continuing. Talk to your PI. Ask for help if possible. Make a tight schedule and stick to it, including studying. It might consume even more of your time, but getting in the studying every day is going to lower your stress levels over the looming exam. Also, you must have one person you feel comfortable enough with to go out and grab a beer. Even being in a lively, more relaxed and less lab-related environment can make you feel better because you will (unconsciously) realize that there's a life outside of the lab, even though that's what yours is focused on right now.
 
Good luck in making your choice and hang in there. As we say where I'm from: het komt allemaal wel op z'n pootjes terecht. (Sadly there's no adequate translation, but it's something along the lines of 'It will land on its feet' - the way a cat does.) 

I've been out of the student game for a while, so when I heard that companies like Amazon give discounts on things like shipping for current students I got excited:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200500380


What other discounts or websites are there to help out new and returning grad students?

I'm sorry to hear about the rudeness! It's hard for strangers online to know enough to be helpful and you probably don't want to reveal all the relevant information to the entire world anyways! I think it might be a good idea to talk to someone at your school, maybe the DGS, or your grad student society's ombudsperson etc. too -- they might be able to help you figure out how to bring this up to your committee (if that's what you want)!

Think also of what your opportunities will be after completing School X, vs if you graduate from School Y - with the reputation and facilities at X, are you likely to get far better opportunities in the future ?

To extend upon what TeaGirl has said....it is usually a good idea to develop and rely on a strong internal sense of evaluation or self-appraisal rather than an external one. One way to do this is to realise that opinions on what is good or bad are just that - opinions, and hence subjective. It is important that you value your own subjective perspective and opinion above that of others - else you will always come across someone in whose (subjective) opinion, your work could be better (read 'different'). If you learn to thus trust your own instinct you will always know whether or not you have passed your own internal benchmarks. Not to say you should ignore constructive criticism from others - but use that to reassess and recaliberate your internal benchmarks as you deem fit.
 
Now for the warm and fuzzy stuff!
 
Remember - Walt Disney was first told that "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas", Marilyn Monroe was told by by modeling agents that she "should instead consider being a secretary", Van Gogh sold only one painting in his entire life and almost starved (ok - this one is not exactly inspirational!), Einstein was once touted as mentally handicapped, and Elvis was told "You ought to go back to drivin' a truck". Luckily for them, some people since thought otherwise.
 
Best of Luck!

This is in no way a justification for what they did, but:

Though connected, there is often a difference between homophobia and ignorance/rudeness. One of the kindest, most conscientious, accepting people I know will refer to herself as "retarded" when she does something stupid. She is in no way hostile to those with special needs (quite the opposite, in fact) but this term is still part of her vocabulary because it was considered an innocent term "back in the day", even though it now offends most people.

Someone also did a good blog responding to hipster notions of being "ironically racist". ("I'm not racist so I can say things that sound racist as a social commentary on how ridiculous racism is.") It's stupid, but not intentionally hateful.

I don't know the context, of course, but perhaps the comment at the meeting was made and supported by people who have no ill feelings toward the LGBT community, but who simply watched too many episodes of "Will and Grace" for their own good. Even those who laughed may be completely supportive of you. (And most supportive people would understand a desire for discretion when dealing with the other school.)

Of course, ignorance (without hostility) can still create a pretty aweful environment, and you deserve to be in a good environment, so nobody would begrudge you leaving.

Good luck!

To extend upon what TeaGirl has said....it is usually a good idea to develop and rely on a strong internal sense of evaluation or self-appraisal rather than an external one. One way to do this is to realise that opinions on what is good or bad are just that - opinions, and hence subjective. It is important that you value your own subjective perspective and opinion above that of others - else you will always come across someone in whose (subjective) opinion, your work could be better (read 'different'). If you learn to thus trust your own instinct you will always know whether or not you have passed your own internal benchmarks. Not to say you should ignore constructive criticism from others - but use that to reassess and recaliberate your internal benchmarks as you deem fit.
 
Now for the warm and fuzzy stuff!
 
Remember - Walt Disney was first told that "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas", Marilyn Monroe was told by by modeling agents that she "should instead consider being a secretary", Van Gogh sold only one painting in his entire life and almost starved (ok - this one is not exactly inspirational!), Einstein was once touted as mentally handicapped, and Elvis was told "You ought to go back to drivin' a truck". Luckily for them, some people since thought otherwise.
 
Best of Luck!

To extend upon what TeaGirl has said....it is usually a good idea to develop and rely on a strong internal sense of evaluation or self-appraisal rather than an external one. One way to do this is to realise that opinions on what is good or bad are just that - opinions, and hence subjective. It is important that you value your own subjective perspective and opinion above that of others - else you will always come across someone in whose (subjective) opinion, your work could be better (read 'different'). If you learn to thus trust your own instinct you will always know whether or not you have passed your own internal benchmarks. Not to say you should ignore constructive criticism from others - but use that to reassess and recaliberate your internal benchmarks as you deem fit.
 
Now for the warm and fuzzy stuff!
 
Remember - Walt Disney was first told that "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas", Marilyn Monroe was told by by modeling agents that she "should instead consider being a secretary", Van Gogh sold only one painting in his entire life and almost starved (ok - this one is not exactly inspirational!), Einstein was once touted as mentally handicapped, and Elvis was told "You ought to go back to drivin' a truck". Luckily for them, some people since thought otherwise.
 
Best of Luck!

This resonates with me in the sense that it's easy to slip into tying your professional self worth with what your advisor thinks of you. This gets even trickier if the advisor doesn't communicate clearly if what you're doing is good or bad, and you end up wondering all the time.
 
I think the best thing to do is to be confident in your own judgment and ability. I assume your judgment has guided you well in life so far, so if you feel your work has an exceptional quality then pat yourself on the back. You're doing well! It's hard not to get discouraged if you're not getting praise from your advisor, but maybe s/he simply not aware of what signals they're sending.
You should ask them how they think you're progressing and if they feel you're doing enough, meeting expectations, etc. and then you could take the guess work out of it!
 
I've grown some thick skin over the years. Failing a few times in life can do that and I had to learn to count on what I think of myself to feel good about things, even professionally. I found that doing that, I often do much better since I discovered that I have higher expectations of myself than others do of me.

Yes, getting a phd will challenge you financially, emotionally and mentally. Yes, the work load is heavy and working hours long. I don't understand how any of this is supposed to be revelatory in any way. If you're an undergrad going in, then know that this is the beginning of your preofessional career. You're really being hired on as junior faculty inthe sense that, hopefully you're getting funded and paid to do some kind of work as well as do research.
Also, I'm getting really tired of hearing people drop the "oh, you're the adjunct generation/no more jobs for you" line. I hear the same thing from nurses, doctors, electricians, bankers, lawyers..etc. Long story short, while I appreciate the endless spiel for what it is, the bottom line is that grad school can also be fun and a great place for personal and professional growth if you learn to navigate the waters.

However the thing to note is that the department-level rankings used here were not the US News Rankings but the NRC rankings, which do not publish an absolute ranking but a range of scores for each department depending on a basket of criteria. The resulting output was multiple sets of rankings, and outside of the absolute absolute top tier (say top 3 schools) the ranking variances were very wide, e.g. ranking for the same school varioes from #5 to #29, or #9 to #46 depending on the criteria used. Even looking at the most important criteria, the scores awarded for 185 schools fell in the range of 24 (low) to 72 (high). The score range for the top 40 schools was 60 to 72.
 
My point, as in my original post, is that the best way to look at rankings (even when considering they determine future opportunities etc.) is in large blocks, i.e. possibly Top 5, 6-30, etc. and yes most people would prefer a #5 to a #200 any day, but I would think there is no big difference between #10 and #25, especially if #25 has POIs you would rather work with???

Methodology: For psychology 246 schools were surveyed, and only 16%, i.e. 39 schools responded, of which top 2 and bottom 2 responses were discarded to get the trimmed mean score...i.e. the Psychology rankings are based on the assessment of 35 individuals in the field grading programs on a scale of 1 to 5, with 4=Strong and 5=Outstanding. Scores: Rank 1 is 4.8, Rank 29 is 4.0. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is not much to go by.
 
(For the sub-fields it gets even better - only programs nominated by at least 7 of the 39 respondees appear on the lists, in order of the number of nominations.
Consider I/O Psychology - only 4 names made it to the list.)

Bad personal fit with your advisor will make your life as a graduate student very hard to bear. If there is a person you really get along with at one school but no one similar at the other, that's an important factor in the decision. On the other hand, there are good reasons for wanting to have more than one potential advisor at a given school; it is possible that your advisor will leave the school (new job, denied tenure at current job?, illness) and you'll need to work with someone else, or you might find out that even though you get along now, at some point in the future some crisis will make the relationship difficult. Furthermore, you want to have possibly 2-3 other professors who are reasonably knowledgeable about your subfield, because at some point in the future you'll need to have a committee with 3-4 members to judge your dissertation (and maybe qualifying exams or papers, if those exist in your program). So it really depends on whether or not it's just this one prof at school A or if there are others that are reasonable matches in terms of research and personality fit.

*faux pas
 
I'd be surprised if "wait list" meant something formal. More likely it means that if another person your POI is trying to recruit declines, they might invite you instead. What I mean is, it probably depends on who declines and who they wanted to work with, not a specific number of people. So I doubt you'll get a useful answer from them.

wabisabi...IMHO:
 
Not specific to the OP's situation, but generically:
 
If the source of stipend in both cases is a TA, then it is unlikely there will be significant differences, or any differences at all, since these are standardized rates depending on the actual workload put in.
 
Differences in tuition remission vs having to pay one's own tuition might often be on account of some fellowship awarded. Alternatively, it is possible that a TA was not guaranteed, and one student is awarded a TA earlier than the other depending on availability of TA slots etc. each quarter. Not very likely but always possible.
 
The most likely scenario wrt differences in stipend etc. is usually when the funding comes from research grants etc. Different advisors may have very different funding sources, and in case of the same advisor - he or she may have multiple grants from different projects, in which case it may simply be a function of which project you are working on vs another student and the comparative funding that each project has. At the end of the day, funding sources for specific projects that are assigned by the specific advisor are not fungible.

The career center at my school offers free job interview coaching and practice; they say grad applicants can benefit from it as well.  They may offer something similar at your school.
 
As for the GRE, there are plenty of books and websites (ETS, to name one) where you can get practice.
 
As for your GPA, you've either got that or you don't.
 
As for lab or clinical experience, you can find that on your own (for free).
 
As for maturity, you can be coached on how to appear mature enough for grad school, but if you aren't there yet, it's better if you don't fool yourself or others and get into a bad situation.
 
As for connections, you can make those on your own as well, believe it or not.
 
Yep, I'm with Juilletmercredi.  Hard to see why you would want to pay for dubious help when you can get what you need on your own for free.